Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.18 seconds)
Kamakhya Prasad Malaho vs Digendra Purkayastha And Ors. on 3 November, 1986 cites

Azhar Hussain vs Rajiv Gandhi on 25 April, 1986

Inspiration to file this petition has been drawn mainly from Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, AIR 1986 SC 1253, wherein it has been held that an election petition can be and must be dismissed under the provisions of the Civil P. C. if the mandatory: requirements enjoined by Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short the Act), to incorporate the material, facts and particular relating to alleged corrupt practice are not complied with. Though Azhar (sic) there is no dispute that the ratio would apply to those averments in the election petition which seek to make out a case for setting aside an election on a ground other than corrupt practice. It has been observed in Azhar Hussain that as the Civil P. C. is applicable to the trial of an election petition vide Section 87 of the Act, the Court can act in exercise of the powers of the Code including Order 6, Rule 16 and Order 7, Rule 11 (a). It has, therefore, been held that the fact that Section 83 of the Act does not find place in S 86 of the Act, which has dealt with dismissal of an election petition, does not mean that power under the Civil P. C. cannot be exercised. According to this decision, an election petition can be summarily dismissed in exercise of the power under the Civil P. C., if it does not furnish cause of action. It is further stated that the omission of a single material fact would lead to an incomplete cause of action and a petition without material fact would not be an election petition at all.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 431 - M P Thakkar - Full Document

Samant N. Balakrishna Etc vs George Fernandez And Ors. Etc on 12 February, 1969

5. It has been urged by Shri Mahanta for the election petitioner that full particulars are required only when corrupt practice is alleged; in other matters statement of material facts would do. Reference is made by the learned counsel to S. M. Balakrishna v. Fernandez, AIR 1969 SC 1201, which has brought out the distinction between material facts and full particulars. The word 'material' in the expression 'material fact' requires, as per the decision, that the facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action must be stated. It was added that omission of a single material fact shall lead to an incomplete cause of action and the statement of claim would become bad. The function of particulars was stated to be to give a full picture of the cause of action with such further information and detail (like the name of the person indulging in corrupt practice, the date, time and place of committing the same) as to make the opposite party understand the case he will have to meet. It was further pointed out that a petition which merely cites the section cannot be said to disclose a cause of action.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 340 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document
1