Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.23 seconds)The Representation of the People Act, 1951
Patangrao Kadam vs Prithviraj Sayajirao Yadav Deshmukh & ... on 26 February, 2001
14. Counsel for the Respondent had relied on
the recent decision of the Apex Court in the case
of Patangrao Kadam vs. Prithviraj Sayajirao Yadav
Deshmukh & Ors. reported in (2001) 3 SCC 594. In
that case, there was clear allegation against the
other candidate (Shri Sampatrao Chavan), referring
to his acts which constituted corrupt practice, as
can
be discerned from the contents of paragraph 17
of the reported Judgment. The Apex Court therefore
proceeded to hold that corrupt practice was alleged
against Shri Sampatrao Chavan in the Election
Petition for which it was imperative to join him as
Respondent in the Election Petition. Thus
understood, this decision pressed into service on
behalf of the Respondent is of no avail.
P. Malaichami vs M. Andi Ambalam & Ors on 18 April, 1973
In
P.Malaichami v. M.Andi Ambalam, this
Court speaking through Alagiriswami, J.,
again pointed out (at page 181, para 18):
Harkirat Singh vs Amrinder Singh on 16 December, 2005
In the recent decision of
the Apex Court in Harkirat Singh vs. Amrinder
Singh reported in (2005) 13 SCC 511,
511 it is held
that all material facts must be pleaded by the
party in support of the case set up by him. For,
the object and purpose of the Petition is to enable
the opposite party to know the case he has to meet
with, in the absence of pleadings, a party cannot
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:46:42 :::
: 17 :
Virender Nath Gautam vs Satpal Singh & Ors on 8 December, 2006
be allowed to lead evidence. (Also see Virender
Nath Gautam vs. Satpal Singh & Ors. reported in
(2007) 3 SCC 617 - paras 29, 30, 31, 34 and 35).