Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.26 seconds)Section 100 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar vs Roop Singh Rathore & Others(And ... on 7 May, 1963
In Murarka Radhey Shyam Kumar v. Roop Singh Rathore & Ors. (AIR 1964 SC 1545), a Constitution Bench of 5 Judges found that the verification defects can always be cured; that 'true copy' referred to in Section 81(3) does not mean an absolutely exact copy; but only means a copy so true that nobody can, by any possibility, misunderstand it; that the test is whether the verification is calculated to mislead the respondent and that the court could very well allow defects to be cured.
T.M. Jacob vs C. Poulose & Ors on 15 April, 1999
In Bhagwan Rambhan Karankal v. Chandrakant Batesingh Raghuvanshi & Ors. (2001 (6) Supreme 101) a Bench of 3 Judges found that where each page of the Election Petition contained signatures of the petitioner, though without endorsement 'true copy' at the end, it can be taken as substantial compliance which would include application of Section 86(1) and rejection of the E.P. In T.M. Jacob v. C. Poulose & Ors. ((1999) 4 SCC 274) = 1999 (2) KLT SC 260, which is a decision by Bench of five Judges, also distinction was drawn between defects which are material and those curable. It was reiterated that the object of serving a copy is to enable the respondent to have precise information as to the case he has to meet and that the test is whether the variation/defect, if any, is calculated to mislead the respondent or not; that a certain amount of flexibility is envisaged and that only impermissible violations tantamouting to 'vital defects' will entail dismissal of the case for non-compliance with S. 81(3) of the R.P. Act.
Kamalam (M) vs Dr. V. A. Syed Mohamad on 8 March, 1978
12. M. Kamalam v. Dr. V.A Syed Mohammed ((1978) 2 SCC 659 = 1978 KLT 349) K.K. Mohamad Koya v. P.P. Sayeed (AIR 1977 Kerala 160) and Ch. Subbarao v. Member, Election Tribunal (AIR 1964 SC 1027) are cases where signatures of the petitioners were affixed at the end of the petition; but the words 'true copy' were not written above that. The Court found that the signature concerned was only for attestation; that the requirement of law is substantially complied with and that merely because the words 'true copy' are not mentioned there, the petition is not liable to be dismissed.
Dr. K.K. Mohamad Koya vs P.M. Sayeed on 14 July, 1977
12. M. Kamalam v. Dr. V.A Syed Mohammed ((1978) 2 SCC 659 = 1978 KLT 349) K.K. Mohamad Koya v. P.P. Sayeed (AIR 1977 Kerala 160) and Ch. Subbarao v. Member, Election Tribunal (AIR 1964 SC 1027) are cases where signatures of the petitioners were affixed at the end of the petition; but the words 'true copy' were not written above that. The Court found that the signature concerned was only for attestation; that the requirement of law is substantially complied with and that merely because the words 'true copy' are not mentioned there, the petition is not liable to be dismissed.
Ch. Subbarao vs Member, Election Tribunal, Hyderabad on 13 January, 1964
12. M. Kamalam v. Dr. V.A Syed Mohammed ((1978) 2 SCC 659 = 1978 KLT 349) K.K. Mohamad Koya v. P.P. Sayeed (AIR 1977 Kerala 160) and Ch. Subbarao v. Member, Election Tribunal (AIR 1964 SC 1027) are cases where signatures of the petitioners were affixed at the end of the petition; but the words 'true copy' were not written above that. The Court found that the signature concerned was only for attestation; that the requirement of law is substantially complied with and that merely because the words 'true copy' are not mentioned there, the petition is not liable to be dismissed.
Tarun Prasad Chatterjee vs Dinanath Sharma on 10 October, 2000
6. Point No. 1:- As regards the question of limitation raised by the 1st respondent, it is seen that the E.P. is field in Court on 27.6.2001. Admittedly, the date of election (declaration of results) is 13.5.01. Tarun Prasad Chatterjee v. Dinanath Sharma ((2000) 8 SCC 69) is authority for the proposition that Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 is applicable with regard to an election petition as well in view of Rule 2(6) of the Representation of the People (Conduct of Elections & Election Petitions) Rules, 1951 and that the 'date of election' is liable to be excluded while computing the period of 45days. In view of the said decision, the present petition filed on 27.6.2001 has to be taken as filed on the last day of limitation and is well within time. The point is decided in favour of the petitioner.
G. Mallikarjunappa And Another vs Shamanur Shivashankarappa & Others on 4 April, 2001
15. Point No. 7:- As regards the affidavit filed in Form No. 25, it is contended that the Form is not strictly followed in so far as the exact words mentioned in the Form are not found in the affidavit at pages 42 and 43 of the petition. I have examined the affidavit and I do not think that there is any substantial variation. What is important in the affidavit is to specify and authenticate the precise paragraphs which, according to the petitioner, are true to his knowledge and the paragraphs and schedules which, according to him, are true to his information. This requirement is sufficiently met in the affidavit. He has clearly stated therein that the averments in paras 1 to 10, 12:1, 12:2, 18 and 19 are based on the information given to him by one Sherry Thomas and also divulged the full details of the persons from whom he got information with regard to each of the other allegations in the E.P. It also to be mentioned here that as found by the three learned Judges in G. Mallikarjunappa v. Shamanur Shivashankarappa (AIR 2001 SC 1829), defects in affidavit and verification can always be cured.