Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 40 (0.30 seconds)Section 83 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Virender Nath Gautam vs Satpal Singh & Ors on 8 December, 2006
Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Owners and Parties
Vessel M.V. Fortune Express and Ors. 40 and Virendra Nath
Gautam Vs. Satpal Singh and Ors.,41 and explicated that under
Order VII Rule 11(a), only the pleadings of the plaintiff-petitioner
can be looked at as a threshold issue. Whereas, entire pleadings of
both sides can be looked into for considering the preliminary issue
under Order XIV Rule 2. Neither the written statement nor the
averments or case pleaded by the opposite party can be taken into
account for answering the threshold issue for rejection of election
petition in terms of Order VII Rule 11 (a) of the Act.
Section 101 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Samant N. Balakrishna Etc vs George Fernandez And Ors. Etc on 12 February, 1969
27. The counsel for the contesting respondent also relied on the
decision in Samant N. Balkrishna Vs. George Fernandez39. No
doubt this decision predicates that election petition is a statutory
proceedings and not an action at law or suit in equity. There can be
no debate with regard to this proposition.
The Representation of the People Act, 1951
Resurgence India vs Election Commission Of India & Anr on 13 September, 2013
Indubitably, the requirement of putting one‘s signature on
each and every page on the affidavit has been restated in the case of
Resurgence India (supra). It is held that when a candidate files an
affidavit with blank particulars it renders the affidavit itself
nugatory. Inasmuch as, the purpose of filing affidavit (form No.26)
along with nomination papers is to effectuate the fundamental right
of the citizens under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India,
who are entitled to have the necessary information of the candidate
at the time of his filing of the nomination papers in order to make a
46
choice of their voting.
The Representation Of The People Act, 1950
Section 81 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Mangani Lal Mandal vs Bishnu Deo Bhandari on 1 February, 2012
37. The respondent No.1 on the other hand, has relied on the
decision in Mangani Lal Mandal (supra). In this case, the election
was challenged by invoking the ground under Section 100(1)(d)(iv)
and in that context the Court observed that it was essential for the
44
(1995) Supple (1) SCC 422
45
(1955) 1 SCR 509 = AIR 1954 SC 513
52
election petitioner to plead material facts that the result of the
election in so far as it concerned the returned candidate has been
materially affected, by such observance or non-observance. In the
present case, the election is challenged by invoking ground of
improper acceptance of nomination of the respondent No.1 –
returned candidate under Section 100(1)(d)(i).