Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.44 seconds)Samant N. Balakrishna Etc vs George Fernandez And Ors. Etc on 12 February, 1969
9. Once again in S. N. Balakrishna's case , it would be material to refer to the following enunciations relative to 'material facts' and 'particulars' and the scope of an amendment to an Election Petition : They are :
Manubhai Nandlal Amorsey vs Popatlal Manilal Joshi And Ors. on 4 January, 1969
12. The enunciation relied on in Manubhai's case clearly refers to an amendment sought at a late stage of the trial of an election petition. The policy of the election law is that cases of corrupt practices would call for investigation in order to maintain the purity of elections and consequently of the Government, and public interest would also be sub-served by it. It is seen from the facts and circumstances earlier enumerated that there has not been any undue delay in making the application. There is also no serious want of diligence on the part of the petitioner. As regards the knowledge attributed to the petitioner as to the facts and particulars, I should think it would not be a sufficient circumstance to prevent an amendment as regards "particulars" being allowed. It also seems to me that there is a built in safeguard in the statutory provision of Section 86(5) in that no amendment of 'material facts' is permitted after the period of limitation prescribed for the presentation of an election petition, Moreover amendments ought not to be refused whenever it is reasonably possible to compensate the party affected thereby by an award of compensatory costs and there is not any statutory inhibition in regard to it, and a case of total want of good faith on the part of the person seeking the amendment is not established. I also find it difficult to conclude that on account of prior knowledge of facts and particulars of the petitioner, even if true, the application deserves to be rejected as contended. I am also satisfied that there has not been any undue want of diligence on the part of the petitioner in making the present application. The contention of the first respondent in this behalf must, therefore, fail.
R.M. Seshadri vs G. Vasantha Pai on 29 November, 1968
In the case of R. M. Seshadri v. G. Vasantha Pai, , in para 16 of the said report, Hidayatullah, C. J. has observed thus:
P. C. Purushothama Reddiar vs S. Perumal on 2 December, 1971
10. The last case to which a reference is necessary is P, C. Purushothama Reddiar v. S. Perumal, . The relevant enunciations partain to the scope and ambit of Sub-section (6) of Section 123 of the R. P. Act, and the nature of amendment to be permitted. They are:
Section 77 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Raj Narain vs Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi And Anr on 15 March, 1972
In the case of Raj Narain v. Smt. Indira Gandhi, , the following two enunciations by Hegde, J., would also be relevant. In para 19 of the above report, it is observed thus:
1