Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.30 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 83 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Section 81 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Mr. V. Narayanaswamy vs Mr. C.P.Thirunavukkarasu on 19 January, 2000
13. The Counsel for the respondent also pointed out another cardinal defect in the verification of pleadings and affidavit. In the verification of pleadings he stated that the allegation in para 1 to 10 and 12 to 15 are true to his knowledge whereas in the affidavit only reference was made to the allegation contained in para 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10. Therefore it is clear that the verification and affidavit are in variance. In short there cannot be a situation in certain paragraphs of verification where knowledge is attributed to the same paragraph in the affidavit wherein information has been attributed. Therefore, it is clear that variance in the verification and the affidavit is fatal to the election petition as held in Narayanaswamy's case (supra), in para 24 again which reads as follows :---
Section 86 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Kumara Nand vs Brijmohan Lal Sharma on 29 November, 1966
In Kumara Nand v. Brijmohan Lal Sharma, decision , the Supreme Court has laid down the factors to be proved in an election petition which is founded on corrupt practices under section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. In para 17, it is observed thus:
Udhav Singh vs Madhav Rao Scindia on 10 October, 1975
On a close examination of the pleadings, I fail to see the pleadings of the petitioner satisfying the parameter laid down by the Supreme Court. The Election Petition contains no essential facts which could clothe the petition with a cause of action and which will call for an answer from the returned candidate.
V.S. Achuthanandhan vs P.J. Francis And Anr on 22 March, 1999
In V.S. Achuthanandan v. P.J. Francis & another, a decision , the Supreme Court observed thus?