Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.47 seconds)
Magraj Patodia vs R. K. Birla And Ors on 10 September, 1970 cites

Rananjaya Singh vs Baijnath Singh And Others on 29 September, 1954

It is true that many times corrupt practices at election may ,not be able to be established by direct evidence and the commission of those corrupt practices may have to be inferred from the proved facts and circumstances but the circumstances proved must reasonably establish that the alleged corrupt practice was committed by the returned candidate or his election agent. As, mentioned earlier preponderance of probabilities is not sufficient. For the reasons mentioned above this appeal must fail and it is hereby dismissed. But we cannot leave this appeal without expressing our uneasiness about the law relating to election expenses. Section 123(6)is by and large ineffective in controlling election expenses. There are ways to bypass that provision. From what we have seen in the various election cases that came be-fore us we are of the opinion that law controlling election expenses has been reduced to a mockery. , We can only repeat the observations of this Court in Rananjaya Singh's case(1) that "the appeal in this connection must be to the parliament." Now coming to the question of costs, the trial court felt extremely unhappy in having had to award costs to respondent No. 1. But it had to because of the compulsion of the law- see s. 119 of the Act. We are not faced with any such compulsion. There is no provision in the Act which compels the appellate court to award costs to the successful party in an election appeal. This is eminently a fit case where we should not award costs to the returned candidate. The resulting position is that the appeal is dismissed but the parties are directed to bear their own costs in this appeal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 72 - Full Document

Ram Dayal vs Brijraj Singh And Ors on 30 April, 1969

The same view was reiterated in Ram Dayal v. Brijraj Singh and ors.(1) Therein this Court ruled that unless it is esta- blished that expenditure was incurred in connection with the election by the candidate or his election agent or was authorised by them, it is not necessary to be included under s. 77 of the Act. Expenses incurred by any other agent or person without anything more need not be included in the account or return as such incurring of expenditure would be purely voluntary.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 23 - J C Shah - Full Document

Jagdev Singh Sidhanti vs Pratap Singh Daulta on 12 February, 1964

While making these observations the learned judges relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Jagdev Singh v. Pratap, Singh(2) In the present appeal we do not propose to go into the question whether the evidence adduced by a petitioner in an election case should establish the case beyond any reasonable doubt but suffice it to say that that evidence must be cogent and conclusive. It is true that as observed in Dr. M. Chenna Reddy practice cannot be equated to a criminal charge in all respects. While the accused in a criminal case can refuse to plead and decline to adduce evidence on his behalf and yet ask the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt such is not the position in an election petition. But the fact remains that burden of proving the commission of the corrupt practice pleaded is on (1). Civil Appeal No. 717/68 decided on 23-8-1968. (2). A.I.R.1956 S.C. 183., (3). Civil Appeal No. 1449/68 decided on 17-12-1968.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 36 - J C Shah - Full Document
1