Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 35 (0.33 seconds)Section 100 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Section 83 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
The Representation of the People Act, 1951
Rahim Khan vs Khurshid Ahmed & Ors on 8 August, 1974
k 3 EP 06.24 J os.doc
(6) The onus of proof of the allegations made in the election petition
is undoubtedly on the person who assails an election which has
been concluded vide Rahim Khan v. Khurshid Ahmed [(1974) 2
SCC 660], Mohan Singh v. Bhanwarlal [(1964) 5 SCR 12 : AIR 1964
SC 1366] and Ramji Prasad Singh v. Ram Bilas Jha [(1977) 1 SCC
260]."
Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal vs Rajiv Gandhi on 11 May, 1987
(2) The allegations in the election petition should not be vague,
general in nature or lacking of materials or frivolous or vexatious
because the court is empowered at any stage of the proceedings to
strike down or delete pleadings which are suffering from such vices
as not raising any triable issue vide Manphul Singh v. Surinder
Singh [(1973) 2 SCC 599 : (1974) 1 SCR 52], Kona Prabhakara
Rao v. M. Seshagiri Rao [(1982) 1 SCC 442] and Dhartipakar
Madan Lal Agarwal v. Rajiv Gandhi [1987 Supp SCC 93].
Durai Muthuswami vs N. Nachiappan & Ors on 23 April, 1973
23. It is clear from the above judgment in Durai Muthuswami [Durai
Muthuswami v. N. Nachiappan, (1973) 2 SCC 45] that there is a difference
between the improper acceptance of a nomination of a returned candidate and the
improper acceptance of nomination of any other candidate. There is also a
difference between cases where there are only two candidates in the fray and a
situation where there are more than two candidates contesting the election. If the
nomination of a candidate other than the returned candidate is found to have
been improperly accepted, it is essential that the election petitioner has to plead
and prove that the votes polled in favour of such candidate would have been
polled in his favour. On the other hand, if the improper acceptance of nomination
is of the returned candidate, there is no necessity of proof that the election has
been materially affected as the returned candidate would not have been able to
contest the election if his nomination was not accepted. It is not necessary for the
respondent to prove that result of the election insofar as it concerns the returned
candidate has been materially affected by the improper acceptance of his
nomination as there were only two candidates contesting the election and if the
appellant's nomination is declared to have been improperly accepted, his election
would have to be set aside without any further enquiry and the only candidate
left in the fray is entitled to be declared elected.
Section 81 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Section 84 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Kona Prabhakara Rao vs M. Seshagiri Rao And Anr. on 9 April, 1980
(2) The allegations in the election petition should not be vague,
general in nature or lacking of materials or frivolous or vexatious
because the court is empowered at any stage of the proceedings to
strike down or delete pleadings which are suffering from such vices
as not raising any triable issue vide Manphul Singh v. Surinder
Singh [(1973) 2 SCC 599 : (1974) 1 SCR 52], Kona Prabhakara
Rao v. M. Seshagiri Rao [(1982) 1 SCC 442] and Dhartipakar
Madan Lal Agarwal v. Rajiv Gandhi [1987 Supp SCC 93].