Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 35 (0.50 seconds)Section 100 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Section 123 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Section 83 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
The Representation of the People Act, 1951
The Representation Of The People Act, 1950
Section 81 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Sardar Harcharan Singh Brar vs Sukh Darshan Singh & Ors on 27 October, 2004
In the decision reported in (2012) 5 SCC 511 P.A.Mohammed Riyas vs. M.K.Raghavan and others, in paragraph 5, it has been held that the said defect was curable and such a proposition has been upheld in various cases beginning with the decision in Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar v. Roop Singh Rathore AIR 1964 SC 1545 and following in F.A.Sapa v. Singora -(1991) 3 SCC 375, Sardar Harcharan Singh Brar v. Sukh Darshan Singh (2004) 11 SCC 196 and K.K.Ramachandran Master v. M.V.Sreyamakumar (2010) 7 SCC 428.
Section 82 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar vs Roop Singh Rathore & Others(And ... on 7 May, 1963
That apart, to our mind, the legislative intent appears to be quite clear, since it divides violations into two classes those violations which would entail dismissal of the election petition under Section 86(1) of the Act like non-compliance with Section 81(3) and those violations which attract Section 83(1) of the Act, i.e., non-compliance with the provisions of Section 83. It is only the violation of Section 81 of the Act which can attract the application of the doctrine of substantial compliance as expounded in Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar v. Roop Singh Rathore and Ch. Subbarao v. Member, Election Tribunal, Hyderabad cases. The defect of the type provided in Section 83 of the Act, on the other hand, can be dealt with under the doctrine of curability, on the principles contained in the Code of Civil Procedure.