Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.26 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Representation Of The People Act, 1950
Section 86 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
R.P. Moidutty vs P.T. Kunju Mohammad & Anr on 28 September, 1999
Election Petition No.13/2009
Section 83 of the Act ordinarily it would suffice if the election petition
contains a concise statement of the material facts relied on by the
petitioner, but in the case of corrupt practice the election petition
must set forth full particulars thereof including as full a statement as
possible of (i) the names of the parties alleged to have committed
such corrupt practice, (ii) the date, and (iii) place of the commission
of each such practice. An election petition is required to be signed and
verified in the same manner as is laid down in the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 for the verification of pleadings. However, if the
petition alleges any corrupt practice then the petition has additionally
to be accompanied by an affidavit in Form No. 25 prescribed by Rule
94A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 in support of the
allegations of such corrupt practice and the particulars thereof. Thus,
an election petition alleging commission of corrupt practice has to
satisfy some additional requirements, mandatory in nature, in the
matter of raising of the pleadings and verifying the averments at the
stage of filing of the election petition and then in the matter of
discharging the onus of proof at the stage of the trial.
Ravinder Singh vs Janmeja Singh & Ors on 19 September, 2000
Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal vs Rajiv Gandhi on 11 May, 1987
Election Petition No.13/2009
decision in Dhartipakar's case (above), allegations as to statement
of promise by the Chief Minister that if the respondent was elected,
constituency would be developed did not constitute corrupt practice of
bribery or undue influence and in absence of pleadings regarding all
the three ingredients, corrupt practice of procuring or hiring of
vehicles was not made out. This apart, the affidavit also does not
contain particulars as prescribed by the Rules, and the verification of
the pleadings has not been done strictly in accordance with Order VI
Rule 15(2) of the Code. For this, reference may be made to para 3 of
the verification clause reads as under -
Bidesh Singh vs Madhu Singh And Ors on 23 September, 2003
20. The decision in Bidesh Singh's case (supra) is of no avail to
the petitioner because firstly in that case the election petition was
based on improper rejection of ballot papers and secondly it was not
a case where the respondent had contended that the allegations
made in the election petition were vague or causing prejudice to him.
In a petition on the allegation of corrupt practices cause of action
cannot be equated with the cause of action as is normally understood
because of the consequences that follow in a petition based on the
allegations of corrupt practices. A petition challenging election on the
ground of corrupt practices is a serious matter in view of the fact that
in case, any such practice is proved, returned candidate would not
only suffer ignominy but also disqualification under S.8A of the Act.
Chandrakant Uttam Chodankar vs Shri Dayanand Rayu Mandrakar & Ors on 15 December, 2004
7. It is true that sub-section (3) of Section 81 of the Act mandates
that every copy of the election petition shall be attested by the
petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition
but the report of the Registry raises a presumption, though
rebuttable, that the copy of the petition as filed by the petitioner was
a true copy (Chandrakant Uttam Chodankar v. Dayanand Rayu
Mandrakar (2005) 2 SCC 188 referred to).
Mohan Rawale vs Damodar Tatyaba on 6 August, 1992
19. However, a reasonable cause of action is said to mean a cause
of action with some chance of success when only the allegations in
the pleading are considered. As explained further in Mohan Rawale
v. Damodar Tatyaba 1994 AIR SCW 2028, the distinctions
among the ideas of the "grounds" in S.81(1) of "material facts" in
Section 83(1)(a) and of "full particulars" in S.83(1)(b) are obvious.
The provisions of S.83(1)(a) and (b) are in the familiar pattern of
Order VI, Rules 2 and 4 and Order 7, Rule 1(e) of the Code. Further,
the distinction between 'Material facts' and 'particulars' which together
constitute the facts to be proved or the 'facta probanda' on the one
hand and the evidence by which those facts are to be proved facta
probantia on the other must be kept clearly distinguished. Thus,
disclosure of cause of action is distinct from absence of material
particulars. However, in a petition like one under consideration, the
statement of material facts as well as full particulars must be so
complete as to raise a cause of action or a triable issue.