Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (1.45 seconds)Ram Sukh vs Dinesh Aggarwal on 18 September, 2009
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases
of Ram Sukh v. Dinesh Aggarwal and Anil Vasudev
Salgaonkar v. Naresh Kushali Shigaonkar has laid
down that to clothe the election petition with a
complete cause of action, the petitioner is required
to plead all material facts and failure to place even a
single material fact amounts to disobedience of the
mandate of section 83(1)(a) of the said Act. In the
context of the question as to what could be said to
be "material facts", the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
laid down that the election petitioner is required to
state what can be categorized as facta probanda
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 17/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/12/2019 01:13:40 :::
CAO1974.19.odt
9/17
only and not facta probantia. In other words, all
such facts that can be said to be fundamental, vital,
basic, cardinal, central, crucial, decisive, essential
and pivotal can be said to be material facts, required
to be pleaded in the election petition to comply with
the stringent requirement of section 83(1)(a) of the
aforesaid Act. It has been clarified by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court that the election petitioner is not
required to state particulars or evidence constituting
facta probantia.
Jyoti Basu & Others vs Debi Ghosal & Others on 26 February, 1982
10. The pleadings in the election petition have
to be perused and appreciated strictly in terms of
the requirement of the aforesaid Act, because the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jyoti Basu
and others v. Debi Ghosal and others (supra) has
laid down that since deciding an election petition
under the said Act is a special jurisdiction, the same
is always required to be exercised in accordance
with the statute creating it. It is laid down that the
Court while considering an election petition is put
in a straight jacket and therefore, the pleadings
need to satisfy the requirement of section 83(1)(a)
of the said Act to justify such an election petition to
go to trial.
Section 83 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Anil Vasudev Salgaonkar vs Naresh Kushali Shigaonkar on 20 August, 2009
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases
of Ram Sukh v. Dinesh Aggarwal and Anil Vasudev
Salgaonkar v. Naresh Kushali Shigaonkar has laid
down that to clothe the election petition with a
complete cause of action, the petitioner is required
to plead all material facts and failure to place even a
single material fact amounts to disobedience of the
mandate of section 83(1)(a) of the said Act. In the
context of the question as to what could be said to
be "material facts", the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
laid down that the election petitioner is required to
state what can be categorized as facta probanda
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 17/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/12/2019 01:13:40 :::
CAO1974.19.odt
9/17
only and not facta probantia. In other words, all
such facts that can be said to be fundamental, vital,
basic, cardinal, central, crucial, decisive, essential
and pivotal can be said to be material facts, required
to be pleaded in the election petition to comply with
the stringent requirement of section 83(1)(a) of the
aforesaid Act. It has been clarified by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court that the election petitioner is not
required to state particulars or evidence constituting
facta probantia.
Laxmi Kant Bajpai vs Hazi Yaqoob & Ors on 8 December, 2009
This position has been reiterated in
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Laxmi Kant Bajpai v. Haji Yaqoob and others
(supra).
Section 86 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Jitu Patnaik vs Sanatan Mohakud & Ors on 2 March, 2012
5. The learned counsel for respondent No.3-
applicant relied upon judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the cases of Ram Sukh v. Dinesh
Aggarwal, reported in (2009) 10 SCC 541, Anil
Vasudev Salgaonkar v. Naresh Kushali Shigaonkar,
reported in (2009) 9 SCC 310, Laxmi Kant Bajpai v.
Haji Yaqoob and others, reported in (2010) 4 SCC
81, Jyoti Basu and others v. Debi Ghosal and others,
reported in AIR 1982 SC 983 and Jitu Patnaik v.
Sanatan Mohakud and others, reported in (2012) 4
SCC 194.
Azhar Hussain vs Rajiv Gandhi on 25 April, 1986
The Hon'ble Supreme Court
has observed in the case of Azhar Husain v. Rajiv
Gandhi, reported in (1986) Supp SCC 315 that the
sword of Damocles need not be kept hanging over
the head of the respondent unnecessarily, without
point or purpose.
Section 81 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
1