Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 57 (0.71 seconds)
Kailas Kisanrao Gorantyal vs Arjun Panditrao Khotkar And Others on 30 March, 2026 cites

Virender Nath Gautam vs Satpal Singh & Ors on 8 December, 2006

In the case of Virendra Nath Gautam Vs. Satpal Singh and Ors. (supra), the Court considered a distinction between material facts and particulars. The material facts are primary or basic facts which must be pleaded by the plaintiff or by the defendant in support of the case set up by him, either to prove his cause of action or defence. Particulars are held to be details in support of material facts pleaded by the party. They amplify, refine and embellish material facts by giving distinctive touch to the basic contours of a picture already drawn, so as to make it full, more clear and more informative. It is held that what is material in the ( 40 ) EP-03-2025 pleading are the facts and not the particulars. The Court considered facta probanda i.e. the facts required to be proved and facta probantia i.e. the facts by means of which they are proved. It is held that what is necessarily to be stated are only the material facts and not the particulars.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 131 - C K Thakker - Full Document

Jaya Bachchan vs Union Of India And Ors on 8 May, 2006

66. Election Petition is mainly filed on the grounds that the respondent No.1 was holding an office of profit. Second ground is that the nomination form of the respondent No.1 was wrongly accepted. This Court has already held both the issues in favour of respondent No.1. Consequently, this Court holds that no cause of action is disclosed to go for trial. The judgment in the case of Jaya Bachchan Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra), is not applicable in the case of office of profit under the Government. In the present case, it is the local authority and not covered under Article 191 of Constitution of India.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 51 - Full Document

Shibu Soren ... Appellant vs Dayanand Sahay & Ors. ... Respondents on 19 July, 2001

In the case of Shibu Sorein Vs. Dayanand Sahay and Ors. (supra), it was a case of disqualification on holding of an office of profit. The Hon'ble apex Court held that the allegation was that the elected candidate was holding the post of Chairman of the Interim Jharkhand Area Autonomous Council (for short 'JAAC'), set up under the Jharkhand Area Autonomous Council Act, 1994 (hereinafter the JAAC Act). The post enjoyed the status of a Minister while functioning as Chairman of the Interim Council. The Hon'ble Court considered Article 102(1)(a) corresponding to Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Court held that mere holding of an office is not material. What ( 37 ) EP-03-2025 is material is holding an office of profit under the Government, other than an office declared by the competent legislature by law not to disqualify its holder. It is further considered that the pecuniary gain is not a relevant factor in such cases. The Court further considered the provision of the JAAC Act, the power and functions etc. and held that the said office was an office of profit which is not exempted under the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, and therefore the disqualification contained under Article 102(1)(a) was squarely attracted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 38 - Cited by 97 - Full Document

Sri Mairembam Prithviraj @ Prithibiraj ... vs Shri Pukhrem Sharatchandra Singh on 28 October, 2016

In the case of Mairembam Prithviraj and Ors. Vs. Pukhrem Sharatchandra Singh and Ors. (supra), the nomination of the candidate was objected to on the ground of false declaration relating to educational qualifications. The Returning Officer directed the candidate ( 43 ) EP-03-2025 to furnish proof of his educational qualifications. However, the declaration was given in Form 26 without producing any supporting documents and the Returning Officer accepted the said nomination. It is thereafter the said candidate came to be elected. The election was challenged under Section 125(1) and 127 of the Act. The allegation was also of corrupt practices. The defeated candidate filed election petition seeking declaration that the election of the returned candidate was null and void and further declaration was sought that the petitioner therein is duly elected as there were only two candidates in the fray. After trial, the election petition was allowed and thus the elected candidate approached to the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that mere finding that there was improper acceptance of nomination is not sufficient for declaration that the election is void under Section 100(1)(d) of the RP Act. It is also held that there has to be further pleading and proof that the result of the election of the returned candidate is materially affected. The order of the High Court was confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 53 - L N Rao - Full Document

Dr. Vijay Laxmi Sadho vs Jagdish on 5 January, 2001

In the case of Vijay Laxmi Sadho Vs. Jagdish (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court considered that though the petition did not comply with provision of Sections 81, 82 and 107 of the Act, it was still not liable to be dismissed in limine under Section 86 for non-compliance with the provision of Section 83(1) or its proviso. It is considered that the rules framed by the High Court relating to trial of election petition are only procedural nature and do not constitute into "substantial law". It was on the ground of language of the Supreme Court and the High Courts. In the said case, the High Court had rejected the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The application was filed seeking rejection of the petition on the ground that the affidavit filed in support of allegations of corrupt practice was not drawn in the manner prescribed under Section 83(1) of the Act r/w Rule 94-A in the prescribed Form 25. The defects was taken to be fatal. However, the said application was rejected and the order of high Court came to be confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 146 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next