Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.37 seconds)
Durai Muthuswami vs N. Nachiappan & Ors on 23 April, 1973 cites

Samant N. Balakrishna Etc vs George Fernandez And Ors. Etc on 12 February, 1969

"The heads of substantive rights in s. 100(1) are laid down in two separate parts : the first dealing with situations in which the election must be declared void on proof of certain facts, and the second in which the election can only be declared void :if the result of the election, in so far as it concerns the returned candidate, can be held to be materially affected on proof of some other facts in the first part they are that the candidate lacked the necessary qualification or had incurred disqualification. These are grounds on proof of which by evidence, the election can be set aside without any further evidence. The second part is conditional that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, was materially affected by the improper acceptance of a nomination. This condition has to be established by some evidence direct or circumstantial. It is, therefore, clear that the substantive rights to make an election petition are defined in these sections and the exercise of the right to petition is limited to the grounds specifically mentioned.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 340 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document
1