Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 40 (0.65 seconds)Section 86 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 81 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Section 82 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Section 117 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Udhav Singh vs Madhav Rao Scindia on 10 October, 1975
In Udhav Singh vs. Madhav Rao Scindia (7), the Apex Court observed that the word "material" shows that the facts necessary to formulate cause of action must be stated. Happening of a fact as well as fact itself is material. Omission of a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action and the statement of claim becomes bad. The particulars present full picture of the cause of action with such further information in detail as to make the opposite party undersland the case he will have to meet. The Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the distinction between the grounds, material facts and material particulars by observing as under:-
Samant N. Balakrishna Etc vs George Fernandez And Ors. Etc on 12 February, 1969
(8). Similar explanation was provided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Samant N. Balakrishna vs. George Fernandez (8). There "may be some over-lapping between material facts and particulars but the two are quite distinct."
Mr. V. Narayanaswamy vs Mr. C.P.Thirunavukkarasu on 19 January, 2000
In V. Narayanaswamy vs. C.P. Thirunavukkarasu (9), the Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with a case of corrupt practice, held that election petition must disclose cause of action and for the said purpose, petition must be read and considered as a whole and the same cannot be rejected merely on the ground of non-disclosure of cause of action if dissected in several parts. The Court observed that material facls and material particulars connote two different things. The difference between 'material facts' from 'material particulars' was re- staled as material facts constitute the cause of action. In election petition, the allegations cannot be equated with the cause of action as is normally understood because of the consequences that follow in a petition based on serious allegations. However, to furnish the material facts, if names of all persons involved in causing illegality or irregularity are not given, the names of few must be given and in absence of these material facls, the petition cannot be tried. The Court made the following observations:-
Ram Sewak Yadav vs Hussain Kamil Kidwai & Ors on 17 January, 1964
Kartar Singh (10), the Hon'ble Supreme Court placed reliance upon its earlier judgment in Ram Sewak Yadav vs. Hussain Kamil Kidwai & Ors. (11), and held that petition must contain a concise statcmenl of material facts, on which the petiiioner relies; for the reason that election petitioner should not get a chance to make a roving and fishing inquiry in the ballot boxes so as to justify its claim that the election of the returned candidate is void. The Court trying the election petition should bear in mind that even after the completion of counting, a candidate or his election agents can apply in writing to the Returning Officer for a recounting of all or any of the ballot papers already counted stating the ground on which he demands such recount as provided under Rule 63(2) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (for short, "the Election Rules, 1961") and where a defeated candidate has an ample opportunity to examine the ballot papers before they are counted and in case the objections are raised by him or his election agents have been improperly over-ruled, he knows precisely the nature of objections raised by him and the ballot papers, to which these objections related. It is in the light of this back-ground that Section 83(1)(a) of the Act has to be applied to the petitions made for inspection of ballots. Such an application must contain a concise statement of material facts. The Court should not be swayed by the allegations which are very vague and general. Where the whole object of the petiiioner in asking the inspection is to make a fishing inquiry with a view to find out some material to support his case for the reason that if such a course is adopted, it would inevitably lead to the opening of the ballot boxes almost in every case and that would plainly be inconsistent with the scheme of the statutory rules and with the object of keeping the ballot papers secret.