Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 30 (0.29 seconds)Section 83 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
F.A. Sapa Etc. Etc vs Singora And Ors. Etc on 10 May, 1991
He relied upon M. Kamalam v. Dr. V.A. Syed Mohammed, AIR 1978 SC 840 para 5, U.S. Sasidharan v. K. Karunakaran, AIR 1990 SC 924, F.A. Sapa v. Singora, AIR 1991 SC 1557 : (1991 AIR SCW 1492) para 28 and K.C. Madhava Kurup v. K. Muraleedharan, AIR 1991 Kerala 20 para 7 (end). The petitioner does not say that he was present in all the public meetings held by the respondent on October 27,1993. It is his case that the speech given by the respondent at Falna was taped by Babulal. As he was not present in the public meeting held at Falna, it cannot be said that the speech was tape recorded in his presence by Babulal. This portion of the affidavit could be verified on the basis of information and not on the basis of knowledge.
Section 123 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Kultar Singh vs Mukhtiar Singh on 17 April, 1964
He relied upon K.M. Mani v. P. J. Antony, AIR 1979 SC 234 para 12, and Kultar Singh v. Mukhtiar Singh, AIR 1965 SC 141 para 9. The total effect of such an appeal has to be borne in mind in deciding whether there was an appeal to the religion as such or not upon the minds and feelings of the ordinary average voters.
Kamalam (M) vs Dr. V. A. Syed Mohamad on 8 March, 1978
He relied upon M. Kamalam v. Dr. V.A. Syed Mohammed, AIR 1978 SC 840 para 5, U.S. Sasidharan v. K. Karunakaran, AIR 1990 SC 924, F.A. Sapa v. Singora, AIR 1991 SC 1557 : (1991 AIR SCW 1492) para 28 and K.C. Madhava Kurup v. K. Muraleedharan, AIR 1991 Kerala 20 para 7 (end). The petitioner does not say that he was present in all the public meetings held by the respondent on October 27,1993. It is his case that the speech given by the respondent at Falna was taped by Babulal. As he was not present in the public meeting held at Falna, it cannot be said that the speech was tape recorded in his presence by Babulal. This portion of the affidavit could be verified on the basis of information and not on the basis of knowledge.
U.S. Sasidharan vs K. Karunakaran & Anr on 23 August, 1989
He relied upon M. Kamalam v. Dr. V.A. Syed Mohammed, AIR 1978 SC 840 para 5, U.S. Sasidharan v. K. Karunakaran, AIR 1990 SC 924, F.A. Sapa v. Singora, AIR 1991 SC 1557 : (1991 AIR SCW 1492) para 28 and K.C. Madhava Kurup v. K. Muraleedharan, AIR 1991 Kerala 20 para 7 (end). The petitioner does not say that he was present in all the public meetings held by the respondent on October 27,1993. It is his case that the speech given by the respondent at Falna was taped by Babulal. As he was not present in the public meeting held at Falna, it cannot be said that the speech was tape recorded in his presence by Babulal. This portion of the affidavit could be verified on the basis of information and not on the basis of knowledge.
K. Kamaraja Nadar vs Kunju Thevar And Ors. on 22 April, 1958
14.. It is well settled law that preliminary objections against an election petition may be raised even before filing written statement (Udhav Singh v. M.R. Scindia, AIR 1976 SC 744 para 21) and they should be decided at the initial stage (K. Kamaraja Nadar v. Kunju Theva, AIR 1958 SC 687 para 41).
Samant N. Balakrishna Etc vs George Fernandez And Ors. Etc on 12 February, 1969
The above quoted paragraphs of the affidavit show that the contents of paras Nos. 7, 8 and 9 of the election petition have been verified to be true on the basis of knowledge and documents referred to therein. Similarly, contents of para No. 10 of the election petition and prayer clause have been verified on the basis of knowledge. No paragraph of the election petition has been verified on the basis of information. The pro forma of the affidavit does not require verification on the basis of documents. Particulars of any of the aforesaid corrupt practices have not at all been verified as required in the above quoted prescribed form of affidavit. Statements of facts and particulars have not separately been pleaded in respect of each head of corrupt practice in the election petition. Heads of the corrupt practices spelt out by the highlights and features of the Falna speech given at page 7 of the election petition have not been given in the affidavit and also in it. In other words, different parts of Falna speech have not been dissected info aforesaid heads of corrupt practices. It has been observed in Samant N. Balakrishna v. George Fernandez, AIR 1969 SC 1201 at page 1212, para 29,--
Azhar Hussain vs Rajiv Gandhi on 25 April, 1986
In this context weighty observations made in Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, AIR 1986 SC 1253 : (1986 All LJ 625) para 4 may be quoted here. They run as follows:---