Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (1.25 seconds)Ram Sukh vs Dinesh Aggarwal on 18 September, 2009
31 In Ram Sukh vs. Dinesh Aggarwal [(2009) 10 SCC 541], the Supreme Court has held as follows:
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Arikala Narasa Reddy vs Venkataram Reddy Reddygari & Anr on 4 February, 2014
However, in the case at hand, the Election Petitioner has not passed the mandates laid down in paragraphs 14 and 15 of Arikala Narasa Reddy (supra) which have been extracted above.
Uttamrao Shivdas Jankar vs Ranjitsinh Vijaysinh Mohite-Patil on 15 May, 2009
32. It is a settled legal proposition that the instructions contained in the Handbook for Returning Officer are issued by the Election Commission in exercise of its statutory functions and are therefore, binding on the Returning Officers. Such a view stands fortified by various judgments of this Court in Ram Sukh v. Dinesh Aggarwal [(2009) 10 SCC 541] and Uttamrao Shivdas Jankar v. Ranjitsinh Vijaysinh Mohite Patil [(2009) 13 SCC 131]. Instruction 16 of the Handbook deals with cases as to when the ballot is not to be rejected. The Returning Officers are bound by the Rules and such instructions in counting the ballot as has been done in this case.
30 In the case at hand, the total number of postal votes were 775 out of which 551 votes were secured by the Election Petitioner and the Returned Candidate secured only 156 votes. Therefore, the counting agents of the Election Petitioner did not raise any objection with regard to postal votes at the time of counting. After the announcement of results, it is the case of the Election Petitioner that he made an oral complaint to the Returning Officer. He admitted that he had not given any written complaint to the Returning Officer. However, he has stated that he has given a complaint on 19.05.2016 to the Chief Electoral Officer which is marked as Ex.P.45. In the opinion of this Tribunal, the Chief Electoral Officer has no role to play and it is only the Returning Officer who has got the power to entertain representations and decide as to whether a re-count is necessary in a given case.
Jitu Patnaik vs Sanatan Mohakud & Ors on 2 March, 2012
24. It needs little reiteration that for the purpose of Section 100(1)(d)(iv), it was necessary for the election petitioner to aver specifically in what manner the result of the election insofar as it concerned the first respondent was materially affected due to the said omission on the part of the Returning Officer. Unfortunately, such averment is missing in the election petition.
32 At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that in Jitu Patnaik vs. Sanatan Mohakud & Others [(2012) 4 SCC 194], it has been held by the Supreme Court in unequivocal terms that the Handbook is only a book for guidance and failure to follow it without anything more will not give cause of action to maintain the election petition. Further, it is to be borne in mind that a judgment of the Supreme Court should not be read as Eculid's theorem.
Ram Sewak Yadav vs Hussain Kamil Kidwai & Ors on 17 January, 1964
Therefore, it is neither desirable nor permissible for a court to frame an issue not arising on the pleadings. The court cannot exercise discretion of ordering re-counting of ballots just to enable the election petitioner to indulge in a roving inquiry with a view to fish material for declaring the election to be void. The order of re-counting can be passed only if the petitioner sets out his case with precision supported by averments of material facts. (Vide Ram Sewak Yadav v. Hussain Kamil Kidwai [AIR 1964 SC 1249], Bhabhi v. Sheo Govind [(1976) 1 SCC 687 : AIR 1975 SC 2117] and M. Chinnasamy v. K.C. Palanisamy [(2004) 6 SCC 341] .)
In the aforesaid case, there was a recrimination petition before the Supreme Court and therefore, each of the disputed ballot papers was examined and the Supreme Court held that both the parties had received equal number of votes. Therefore, lots were drawn under Section 102 of the R.P. Act and Arikala Narasa Reddy was declared as the victor. Only in such a peculiar circumstance, the Supreme Court held so in paragraph 32 extracted above.
M. Chinnasamy vs K.C. Palanisamy & Ors on 21 November, 2003
Therefore, it is neither desirable nor permissible for a court to frame an issue not arising on the pleadings. The court cannot exercise discretion of ordering re-counting of ballots just to enable the election petitioner to indulge in a roving inquiry with a view to fish material for declaring the election to be void. The order of re-counting can be passed only if the petitioner sets out his case with precision supported by averments of material facts. (Vide Ram Sewak Yadav v. Hussain Kamil Kidwai [AIR 1964 SC 1249], Bhabhi v. Sheo Govind [(1976) 1 SCC 687 : AIR 1975 SC 2117] and M. Chinnasamy v. K.C. Palanisamy [(2004) 6 SCC 341] .)
In the aforesaid case, there was a recrimination petition before the Supreme Court and therefore, each of the disputed ballot papers was examined and the Supreme Court held that both the parties had received equal number of votes. Therefore, lots were drawn under Section 102 of the R.P. Act and Arikala Narasa Reddy was declared as the victor. Only in such a peculiar circumstance, the Supreme Court held so in paragraph 32 extracted above.
Jyoti Basu & Others vs Debi Ghosal & Others on 26 February, 1982
34 On behalf of the Election Commission of India, O.A.No.750 of 2017 has been filed for striking off the Returning Officer from the array of respondents, by placing strong reliance upon Section 82 of the R.P. Act and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Jyoti Basu and others vs. Debi Ghosal and others [(1982) 1 SCC 691].