Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.26 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Gajanan Krishnaji Bapat & Anr vs Dattaji Raghobaji Meghe & Ors on 18 July, 1995
39. The case of Gajanan Krishnaji Bapat v. Dattaji Raghobaji Meghe (AIR 1995 SC 2284), was referred to in para 15 of the judgment in L.R. Shivaramagowda's case (AIR 1999 SC 252) (supra) extracting the following observations from the said case:--
Lalit Kishore Chaturvedi vs Jagdish Prasad Thada And Others on 16 February, 1990
34. The learned single Judge referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in case Lalit Kishore Chaturvedi v. Jagdish Prasad Thada, AIR 1990 SC 1731, quoted the following observations made by the Apex Court (at page 1733):--
Hardwari Lal vs Kanwal Singh on 7 December, 1971
44. The position regarding taw stands well settled and concluded by the recent judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dr. (Smt) Shipra's case (AIR 1996 SC 1691) (supra), S. Baldev Singh Mann's case (AIR 1996 SC 1109) (supra) and L. R. Shivaramagowda's case (AIR 1999.SC 252) (supra). Standard of proof is required for proving the charge of corrupt practice, which in the instant case is not that relevant inasmuch as
at the present stage the petitioner has not gone into trial.
Manubhai, Nandlal Amersey vs Popatial Manilal Joshi & Ors on 7 January, 1969
"The importance of material facts and the distinction between the material facts and particulars was also brought out in another recent decision of this Court in Manubhai Nandlal Amersey v. Popatlal Manilal Joshi, (1969) 3 SCR 217 : AIR 1969 SC 734. In that case a charge in the petition was that several persons with the consent of the appellant or his election agents induced or attempted to induce the electors to believe that if they voted for the Congress party candidate they would become the objects of divine displeasure and spirituals censure. At a late stage of the trial the High Court gave leave to the election petitioner to amend the petition by adding fresh particulars of the corrupt practice. Bachawat, J. speaking for the Court said that Section 83 of the Act was mandatory and particulars of corrupt practice were to be set out in full. It was said in that case that no amendment in the shape of particulars of corrupt practice was permissible
if the corrupt practice was not previously alleged in the petition. The obvious need not be stressed. It is that an election petition has the effect of declaring an election void. It is a serious remedy. It is, therefore, vital that the, corrupt practice charged against the respondent should be a full and complete statement of material facts to clothe the petitioner with a complete cause of action and to give an equal and full opportunity to the respondent to meet the case and to defend the charges. Merely, alleging that the respondent obtained or procured or attempted to obtain or procure assistance or extracting words from the statute which will have no meaning unless and until facts are stated to show what that assistance is and how the prospect of election is furthered by such assistance. In the present case, it was not even alleged that assistance obtained or procured was other than the giving of word. It was said by counsel for the respondent that because the statute did not render the giving of vote a corrupt practice the words 'any assistance' were full statement of material facts. The submission is fallacious for the simple reason that the matter of assistance, the mode of assistance, the manner of assistance, the measure of assistance are all various aspects of fact to clothe the petition with a cause of action which will call for an answer. Material facts are facts which if established would give the petitioner the relief asked for. If the respondent had not appeared could the Court have given a verdict in favour of the election petitioner. The answer is in the negative because the allegations in the petition did not disclose any cause of action."
Dr. (Smt.) Shipra, Etc. Etc. vs Shanti Lal Khoiwal, Etc. Etc. on 3 March, 1996
44. The position regarding taw stands well settled and concluded by the recent judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dr. (Smt) Shipra's case (AIR 1996 SC 1691) (supra), S. Baldev Singh Mann's case (AIR 1996 SC 1109) (supra) and L. R. Shivaramagowda's case (AIR 1999.SC 252) (supra). Standard of proof is required for proving the charge of corrupt practice, which in the instant case is not that relevant inasmuch as
at the present stage the petitioner has not gone into trial.
L.R. Shivaramagowda Etc vs T.M. Chandrashekar (D) By Lrs. And Ors on 1 December, 1998
44. The position regarding taw stands well settled and concluded by the recent judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dr. (Smt) Shipra's case (AIR 1996 SC 1691) (supra), S. Baldev Singh Mann's case (AIR 1996 SC 1109) (supra) and L. R. Shivaramagowda's case (AIR 1999.SC 252) (supra). Standard of proof is required for proving the charge of corrupt practice, which in the instant case is not that relevant inasmuch as
at the present stage the petitioner has not gone into trial.
Mani Ram vs Surinder Kumar And Others on 13 May, 1992
In my considered view, the averments made in the election petition in the instant case fall further short of the mention regarding the person in whose presence the respondent No. 1 paid the amount to the persons named in the respective paragraphs in the villages concerned and the names of the persons, who actually received the bribe and promised to vote in favour of the respondent No. I. The allegations in the instant case are, thus, much more lacking in full and better particulars than the facts in the case of Mani Ram (supra).
Udhav Singh vs Madhav Rao Scindia on 10 October, 1975
To somewhat similar effect is the law laid down in Udhav Singh v. Madhav Rao Scindia, AIR 1976 SC 744, wherein in para 30, it was held as under:--