Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.22 seconds)
Janaklali vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 July, 2017 cites

Bhabhi vs Sheo Govind & Ors on 21 April, 1975

13. Before dealing with rival contentions advanced at the Bar, it is profitable to summarize the circumstance under which recount could be ordered. The Apex Court way back in Bhabhi Vs. Sheo Govind (1976) 1 SCC 687 opined that the election petition must contain the adequate statement of all the material facts on which the allegations of irregularity and illegality in counting are founded. On the basis of evidence adduced, such illegality must be established. The Court trying the petition must be satisfied that making of such an order of recount is imperatively necessary to decide the dispute and to do complete justice between the parties.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 172 - S M Ali - Full Document

Chanda Singh vs Choudhary Shiv Ram Verma And Ors. on 19 December, 1974

In Chanda Singh Vs. Choudhary Shiv Ram Verma, (1975) 4 SCC 393, the Apex Court held that the democracy runs on the smooth wheels of periodic and pure elections. A certain amount of stability in the electoral process is essential. Recount of ballot cannot be interfered too frequently and on flippant accounts. The secrecy of the ballot is sacrosanct in democratic process.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 58 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Hanumant Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 September, 2014

In Hanumant Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2012) 3 MPLJ, this Court considered the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1993 SC 367, (Shri Satyanarain Dudhani Vs. Uday Kumar Singh and others) and opined that secrecy of ballot cannot be lightly tinkered. In a democratic set up, secrecy of ballot is of utmost importance and in absence of very specific pleadings of material facts and particulars supported by contemporaneous evidence, neither election can be quashed nor recount can be ordered.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

Satyanarain Dudhani vs Uday Kumar Singh And Ors. on 17 November, 1992

In Hanumant Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2012) 3 MPLJ, this Court considered the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1993 SC 367, (Shri Satyanarain Dudhani Vs. Uday Kumar Singh and others) and opined that secrecy of ballot cannot be lightly tinkered. In a democratic set up, secrecy of ballot is of utmost importance and in absence of very specific pleadings of material facts and particulars supported by contemporaneous evidence, neither election can be quashed nor recount can be ordered.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 76 - K Singh - Full Document
1   2 Next