Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 31 (0.26 seconds)
Capt R Tamil Selvan vs Ganesh Kumar Yadav on 18 August, 2025 cites

Durai Muthuswami vs N. Nachiappan & Ors on 23 April, 1973

23. It is clear from the above judgment in Durai Muthuswami [Durai Muthuswami v. N. Nachiappan, (1973) 2 SCC 45] that there is a difference between the improper acceptance of a nomination of a returned candidate and the improper acceptance of nomination of any other candidate. There is also a difference between cases where there are only two candidates in the fray and a situation where there are more than two candidates contesting the election. If the nomination of a candidate other than the returned candidate is found to have been improperly accepted, it is essential that the election petitioner has to plead and prove that the votes polled in favour of such candidate would have been polled in his favour. On the other hand, if the improper acceptance of nomination is of the returned candidate, there is no necessity of proof that the election has been materially affected as the returned candidate would 25 of 38
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 36 - A Alagiriswami - Full Document

Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal vs Rajiv Gandhi on 11 May, 1987

(2) The allegations in the election petition should not be vague, general in nature or lacking of materials or frivolous or vexatious because the court is empowered at any stage of the proceedings to strike down or delete pleadings which are suffering from such vices as not raising any triable issue vide Manphul Singh v. Surinder Singh [(1973) 2 SCC 599 : (1974) 1 SCR 52], Kona Prabhakara Rao v. M. Seshagiri Rao [(1982) 1 SCC 442] and Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal v. Rajiv Gandhi [1987 Supp SCC 93].
Supreme Court of India Cites 47 - Cited by 195 - K N Singh - Full Document

Kanimozhi Karunanidhi vs A. Santhana Kumar on 4 May, 2023

5.EP.36.2025.doc Karunanidhi Vs. A. Santhana Kumar and others14 and Karim Uddin Barbhuiya Vs. Aminul Haque Laskar and others 15 that even a singular omission of statutory requirement must entail dismissal of the Election Petition by having recourse to provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, in my view, the present Election Petition does not disclose any cause of action for making out any of the ground under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) read with Section 83 of RP Act and therefore the Election Petition cannot be taken to trial and is liable to be rejected by having recourse to the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Resultantly the Election Petition fails.
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 1 - B M Trivedi - Full Document

Kona Prabhakara Rao vs M. Seshagiri Rao And Anr. on 9 April, 1980

(2) The allegations in the election petition should not be vague, general in nature or lacking of materials or frivolous or vexatious because the court is empowered at any stage of the proceedings to strike down or delete pleadings which are suffering from such vices as not raising any triable issue vide Manphul Singh v. Surinder Singh [(1973) 2 SCC 599 : (1974) 1 SCR 52], Kona Prabhakara Rao v. M. Seshagiri Rao [(1982) 1 SCC 442] and Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal v. Rajiv Gandhi [1987 Supp SCC 93].
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 22 - S M Ali - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next