Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (1.64 seconds)Laxmi Narayan Nayak vs Ramratan Chaturvedi And Ors on 22 December, 1989
In this regard, Dr.
Ghatate has relied on the decision of this court in daulat
ram chauhan Vs. Anand sharma (1984 (2) SCC 64 at 14,15,18,19
&20 and the decision in laxmi Narayan Nayak Vs. Ramratan
chaturvedi and others (1990 (2) SCC 173 para 5)
DR. Ghatate has also submitted tht section 99 of the
Represaentation Act is mandatory in nature. He has submitted
that even consent to the speeches delivered by smt mehta and
sri mahajan, the High Court, in view of the section 98 read
with section 99 of the Representation Act, cannot set aside
the election before naming the collaborators after giving
the collaborators opportunity to lead evidence and to cross-
examine the withesses examined to prove that they were not
guilty of corrupt pracyice as alleged.
D. Venkata Reddy vs R. Sultan & Others on 24 February, 1976
In this
connection, Dr. ghatate has relied on the decision of this
court in mohan singh vs. Bhanwarlal and others (1964 (5) SCR
12 at 20), kultar singh vs mukhtir singh (1964 (7) SCR 790
at 791-794), D.Venkata Reddy Vs. R sultan and others (1976
(3) SCR 445 at 445-447). Dr. Ghatate has sumitted that there
is no room for inferenfce or conjecture for making a finding
of corrupt practice. Dr. ghatate has also submitted that the
evidence about the corrupt practice must be of such
unimpeacdhable character that it will lead to only one
conclusion that corrupt practice has been commited and if
anu other inference is alos possible, benefit must go to the
returned candidate and courts should be slow to interfere
with the verdict of the electorate .
Kultar Singh vs Mukhtiar Singh on 17 April, 1964
In this connection ,Dr.ghgatate has
relised on the decison of this court in mohan singh vs.
bhaanwarlal and others (1964(5) SCR 12 at 20), kultar singh
Vs. Mukhtiar singh (1964 (7) SCR 790 at 791-794), D.Venkata
Reddy Vs. R. Sultan and others (1976 (3) SCR 445 at 445-
Mohan Singh vs Bhanwarlal & Others on 3 October, 1963
In this
connection, Dr. ghatate has relied on the decision of this
court in mohan singh vs. Bhanwarlal and others (1964 (5) SCR
12 at 20), kultar singh vs mukhtir singh (1964 (7) SCR 790
at 791-794), D.Venkata Reddy Vs. R sultan and others (1976
(3) SCR 445 at 445-447). Dr. Ghatate has sumitted that there
is no room for inferenfce or conjecture for making a finding
of corrupt practice. Dr. ghatate has also submitted that the
evidence about the corrupt practice must be of such
unimpeacdhable character that it will lead to only one
conclusion that corrupt practice has been commited and if
anu other inference is alos possible, benefit must go to the
returned candidate and courts should be slow to interfere
with the verdict of the electorate .
D. P. Mishra vs Kamal Narayan Sharma And Anr on 13 March, 1970
Dr. Ghatate has
submitted that it has been held in D.P.
Mishra Vs. Kamal Narayan Sharma and another (1971) (1) SCR 8
at 28 and 29) that it is the duty of the Court to name the
person committing corrupt practice. If the Court fails, the
case has to be remanded.
Ram Singh & Ors vs Col. Ram Slngh on 7 August, 1985
If there is not
specific denial of the averments made about the corrupt
practice as contained in paragraphs 62-70 of the election
petition, any att6empt of vague and evesive denial will be
of no consequence acording to the well established
principles of pleadings to pleadings and the provisions of
the Code of Civil Procedure relating to Pleadings of the
parties in a lis. Mr.Poti has submitted that there is no
doubt that the plea of corrupt practice requires a high
standard of proof considering the serious consequences
involved in a decision on the question. But facts relating
to corrupt practice are to be proved in an election petition
in the same manner as facts in the othere case are proved
and there is not double standard od such proof. For this
conterntion he has relied on a decision of this Court in Ram
Singh and others Vs. Col. Ram Singh (1985 Suppl. (2) SCR 399
at 481-482).
Nangthombam Ibomcha Singh vs Leisanghem Chandramani Singh & Ors on 13 September, 1976
for the said contention
Mr.Poti referred to the decision of this Court made in
Nanothombam Ibomcha singh Vs. Leisanghem Chandramani Singh
and others (1977 (1) SCR 573).
Mohd. Yunus Saleem vs Shiv Kumar Shastri And Others on 25 March, 1974
It has also been held by
this Court in Mohd .Yanus Saleem Vs. Shiv Kumar Shastri and
others (1974 (3) SCR 738) that unless there are convincing
and clinching reasons to take a different view, the finding
arrived at by the High Court should not be interfered with.
Prahladdas Khandelwal vs Narendra Kumar Salve on 11 September, 1972
In Prahladdas Khandelwal Vs. Narendra Kumar Salve (1973 (2)
SCR 157) it has been held that no interference to the
findings of fact by this Court is called for unless there is
grave error in the appreciation of the facts of the case.