Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.31 seconds)Article 191 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 83 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Sahodrabai Rai vs Ram Singh Aharwar on 2 February, 1968
In Sahodrabai Rai v. Ram Singh Aharwar5 the
question raised was as follows: (AIR p. 1080, para 3)
“3. … ‘Whether the election petition is liable to be
dismissed for contravention of Section 81(3) of the
Representation of the People Act, 1951 as copy of
Annexure A to the petition was not given along with
the petition for being served on the respondents.’”
Kamalam (M) vs Dr. V. A. Syed Mohamad on 8 March, 1978
In M. Kamalam v. V.A. Syed Mohammed this
Court followed Sahodrabai Rai and held that a schedule
or an annexure which is an integral part of an election
petition must comply with the provisions of Section
83(2) of the Act. Similarly, the affidavit referred to in
the proviso to Section 83(1) of the Act where the
election petition alleges corrupt practices by the
returned candidate also forms a part of the election
petition. If the affidavit, at the end of the election
petition is attested as a true copy, then there is
sufficient compliance with the requirement of Section
81(3) of the Act and would tantamount to attesting the
election petition itself.”
Hari Shanker Jain vs Sonia Gandhi on 12 September, 2001
In Hari Shanker Jain v. Sonia Gandhi10 , a
three-Judge Bench of this Court held that the expression ‘cause
of action’ would mean facts to be proved, if traversed, in order
to support his right to the judgment of the court and that the
function of the party is to present a full picture of the cause of
action with such further information so as to make opposite
party understand the case he will have to meet. To quote
Paragraph-23:
Samant N. Balakrishna Etc vs George Fernandez And Ors. Etc on 12 February, 1969
“23. … The expression “cause of action” has been
compendiously defined to mean every fact which it
would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if
traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment
of court. Omission of a single material fact leads to an
10
(2001) 8 SCC 233
19
incomplete cause of action and the statement of claim
becomes bad. The function of the party is to present as
full a picture of the cause of action with such further
information in detail as to make the opposite party
understand the case he will have to meet. (See Samant
N. Balkrishna v. George Fernandez, Jitendra Bahadur
Singh v. Krishna Behari.) Merely quoting the words of
the section like chanting of a mantra does not amount
to stating material facts. Material facts would include
positive statement of facts as also positive averment of
a negative fact, if necessary.
Jitendra Bahadur Singh vs Krishna Behari & Ors on 13 August, 1969
“23. … The expression “cause of action” has been
compendiously defined to mean every fact which it
would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if
traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment
of court. Omission of a single material fact leads to an
10
(2001) 8 SCC 233
19
incomplete cause of action and the statement of claim
becomes bad. The function of the party is to present as
full a picture of the cause of action with such further
information in detail as to make the opposite party
understand the case he will have to meet. (See Samant
N. Balkrishna v. George Fernandez, Jitendra Bahadur
Singh v. Krishna Behari.) Merely quoting the words of
the section like chanting of a mantra does not amount
to stating material facts. Material facts would include
positive statement of facts as also positive averment of
a negative fact, if necessary.
Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. & Ors vs Owners & Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune ... on 30 January, 2006
31. In Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. v. Owners & Parties, Vessel
M.V. Fortune Express12, this Court at Paragraph-12 held that:
Ponnala Lakshmaiah vs Kommuri Pratap Reddy & Ors on 6 July, 2012
In a recent decision in Ponnala Lakshmaiah v.
Kommuri Pratap Reddy and others13, this Court had held at
Paragraphs-17 and 29 that: