Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.06 seconds)Section 83 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Section 86 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Section 81 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Umesh Challiyil vs K.P.Rajendran on 26 February, 2008
In Umesh Challiyill v. K.P. Rajendran, reported in (2008)
11 supreme court cases 740, the following observation has been made
in para-19 of the judgment which is necessary for guidance while
deciding as to what should the election petition contain where the election
has been challenged on the ground of corrupt practice:
Ravinder Singh vs Janmeja Singh & Ors on 19 September, 2000
In Ravinder Singh v. Janmeja Singh and others, reported
in (2000) 8 SCC 191, it is observed that in respect of alleged corrupt
practice the election petitioner is obliged to disclose his source of
information in respect of the commission of the alleged corrupt practice
which is necessary to prevent any fishing and roving inquiry and save the
return candidate from being taken by surprise.
T.M. Jacob vs C. Poulose & Ors on 15 April, 1999
In the case of T.M. Jacob (supra) the copy of the affidavit in
support of allegations of corrupt practice made in the petition contained
endorsement that the affidavit had been duly signed, verified and affirmed
by the petitioner before a Notary and the Notary had also signed below the
endorsement but name, address and stamp and seal of the Notary was
missing in the copy of the affidavit. It was therefore held by the Hon'ble
apex Court that there was substantial compliance with requirements of
18
Section 81(3) read with Section 83 (1) (c) of the Act and the defect in the
copy was not vital and had not misled the returned candidate.
Hari Shanker Jain vs Sonia Gandhi on 12 September, 2001
24. It is held by the apex Court in the case of Hari Shankar
Jain v. Sonia Gandhi: (2001) 8 SCC 233 as follows :
Dr. (Smt.) Shipra, Etc. Etc. vs Shanti Lal Khoiwal, Etc. Etc. on 3 March, 1996
While so
holding the Bench took into consideration the decision in Dr. Shipra
(supra) and held that Dr. Shipra (supra) was distinguishable on facts.
Nowhere, it has been held that Dr. Shipra did not lay down the correct
position of law or that it was not good law.
Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar vs Roop Singh Rathore & Others(And ... on 7 May, 1963
In the case of Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar (supra)
where the copy of the election petition served on the returned candidate
17
was attested and signed by the election petitioner as a true copy, but
there was absence of signature of the election petitioner below the word,
'petitioner' and also there was some minor defect committed by the Oath
Commissioner in the verification, it was held that the defect was not fatal
to the election petition.