Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (1.74 seconds)Ram Singh & Ors vs Col. Ram Slngh on 7 August, 1985
Inviting attention of the Court to the judgment
rendered by the Supreme Court in the cases of Ram Singh Vs.
Col. Ram Singh 1985 Supp.
Thakur Sen Negi vs Dev Raj Negi And Another on 5 May, 1993
15. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of
Thakur Sen Negi (supra) that:
Narender Singh vs Mala Ram & Anr on 15 September, 1999
SCC 611 and Narendra Singh
(supra), it has been contended by learned counsel for the
respondent that when evidence adduced is capable of drawing
an inference either-way, the view that is favourable to the
returned candidate, will have to be preferred.
Rahim Khan vs Khurshid Ahmed & Ors on 8 August, 1974
How an election court should evaluate the evidence in such a situation has
been stated time and again by this Court. It would be sufficient if we extract a
passage from this Court's decision in Rahim Khan v. Khurshid Ahmed which
reads thus:
Pratap Singh vs Rajinder Singh & Anr on 20 February, 1975
20. In this regard, learned counsel for the respondent
16 E.P. No.34/2014
submits that the alleged exhortation by the respondent at
Mankhedi on 03.04.2014, has been specifically denied in the
written statement of the respondent. He further contends that
the Supreme Court in the cases of F.A. Sapa vs Singora and
others, AIR 1991 SC 1557, Pratap Singh (supra) and a
catena of other has held that allegation of corrupt practice
being quasi-criminal in nature, has to be proved beyond
reasonable doubt and not merely by a preponderance of
probabilities.
F.A. Sapa Etc. Etc vs Singora And Ors. Etc on 10 May, 1991
20. In this regard, learned counsel for the respondent
16 E.P. No.34/2014
submits that the alleged exhortation by the respondent at
Mankhedi on 03.04.2014, has been specifically denied in the
written statement of the respondent. He further contends that
the Supreme Court in the cases of F.A. Sapa vs Singora and
others, AIR 1991 SC 1557, Pratap Singh (supra) and a
catena of other has held that allegation of corrupt practice
being quasi-criminal in nature, has to be proved beyond
reasonable doubt and not merely by a preponderance of
probabilities.