Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (0.44 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Samant N. Balakrishna Etc vs George Fernandez And Ors. Etc on 12 February, 1969
In this connection judgment and decision in the case of Samant
N. Balakrishna v. George Fernandez may also be considered. It was held inter alia in the aforesaid judgment that "the petitioner may prove a corrupt practice by the candidate himself or his election agent or someone with the consent of the candidate or his election agent in which case he need not establish what the result of the election would have been without the corrupt practice. If the petitioner does not prove a corrupt practice by the candidate or his election agent or another person with the consent of the returned candidate or his election agent, but relies on a corrupt practice committed by an agent other than an election agent, must additionally prove how the corrupt practice affected the result of the poll. Unless he proves the consent to the commission of the corrupt practice on the part of the candidate or his election agent he must face this additional burden.
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 101 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Manohar Joshi vs Nitin Bhaurao Patil & Anr on 11 December, 1995
In this connection, judgment and decision in the case of Monohar Joshi v. Nitin Babu Rao Patil & Another may be taken note of. In the aforesaid decision latin maxim "Lex Non Cogit Ad Impossibilia" has been quoted which means "the law does not compel a man to do that which he cannot possibly perform." The said dictum has been noted in the aforesaid decision at paragraph 9 and 15.
Gajanan Krishnaji Bapat & Anr vs Dattaji Raghobaji Meghe & Ors on 18 July, 1995
The said ratio was also noted by the Supreme Court in the case of Gajanan Krishanji Bapet v. Duttaji Rugharji Meghe where it has been stated that Court should not insist on proof to such an extreme extent that it becomes well nigh impossible to prove (by the petitioners) to defeat and frustrate the provisions of the Act.
Jyoti Basu & Others vs Debi Ghosal & Others on 26 February, 1982
In Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosai this Court observed :
Jagan Nath vs Jaswant Singh And Others on 20 January, 1954
"It is well settled that the success of a candidate who has won at an election should not be lightly interfered with. However, one of the essentials of the law is also to safeguard the purity of the election process and to see that people do not get elected by corrupt practices: (Jagan Nath v. Jaswant Singh).