Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.40 seconds)
S.M.Nasar vs Pandia Rajan. K cites

Ramesh Rout vs Rabindra Nath Rout on 9 December, 2011

In Ramesh Rout v. Rabindra Nath Rout, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that the handbook issued to the Returning Officer does not have a statutory corrupt act and therefore, a mere failure to adhere to the directions contained in the handbook without any further evidence as to the effect of such failure cannot have the effect of vitiating the elections. Therefore, the failure on the part of the Returning Officer to have a recount of the postal ballots cannot be a ground to vitiate the elections. 28/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Election Pet. No.3 of 2016 17.6. I am therefore, constrained to conclude that even though there is a failure on the part of the Returning Officers to have conducted a recount of the postal ballots, the same will not offer a ground to the petitioner to have the election declared as void. Hence Issue No.8 is answered against the petitioner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 41 - R M Lodha - Full Document

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

13.5. Contending Contra, Mr.H.Karthik Seshadri learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that mere non disclosure of the expenditure would not amount to corrupt practice. He would further submit that in Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal v. Rajiv Gandhi, reported in 1987 (Supp) SCC 93, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that any voluntary expenses incurred by a political party, well-wishers, sympathizers or association of persons would not fall within the mischief of Section 123(6) of the Act. He would also submit that in order to bring a non 20/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Election Pet. No.3 of 2016 disclosure as a corrupt practice as contemplated under Sections 77 and 123(6), it is necessary for the petitioner to plead requisite facts showing authorisation, or undertaking of reimbursement by the candidate or his election agent. Relying heavily upon the said judgment, the learned counsel would contend that a mere omission to declare certain expenses incurred by some other person would not amount to corrupt practice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 47 - Cited by 195 - K N Singh - Full Document

Arikala Narasa Reddy vs Venkat Ram Reddy Reddygari on 17 April, 2014

In Arikala Narasa Reddy v. Venkata Ram Reddy Reddygari and another, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was concerned with the instructions contained in the hand book for Returning Officers particularly instruction No.16 which dealt with rejection of ballots. In that context, the Hon’ble Supreme Court at para 32 of the said judgment observed that instructions contained in the hand book for Returning Officers are binding on the Returning Officers. The question as to whether violation of such instructions by the Returning Officers particularly with reference to recounting of votes would vitiate the election was gone into by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 54 - Full Document

Kamalnath vs Sudesh Verma on 8 January, 2002

13.6. The learned counsel for the first respondent would also draw my attention to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kamalnath v. Sudesh Verma, reported in (2002) 2 SCC 410, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that mere non-disclosure of the expenditure will not amount to corrupt practice, unless it is shown that the expenditure incurred is over and above the prescribed limit and the excess expenditure must be incurred by the candidate or by any person authorised by the candidate or his election agent. In other words, an expenditure incurred by a third person who is not authorised by a candidate or who is not an election agent of the candidate, will not be a corrupt practice within the ambit of Section 123(6) of the Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 20 - Full Document
1   2 Next