IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KALYAN RAI SURANA
Nijam Uddin Choudhury, S/o. Late Ishub Ali Choudhury – Appellant
Versus
Moon Swarnakar, W/o. Ashok Verma And D/o. Late Bijoy Bahadur Swarnakar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the returned candidate's election is contested based on allegations of non-disclosure in election affidavit. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. legal arguments regarding the acceptability and adherence to the election commission's requirements. (Para 6 , 10) |
| 3. court's observations on procedural correctness in election petitions. (Para 21 , 22 , 30) |
| 4. emphasis on stringent requirements for establishing corrupt practices in election petitions. (Para 100 , 112) |
| 5. the final ruling on the dismissal of the election petition due to lack of material facts. (Para 122) |
ORDER :
(KALYAN RAI SURANA, J.)
| Heading |
| Preliminaries |
| Prayer in connected election petition |
| Submission on behalf of applicant |
| Submission on behalf of respondent (election petitioner) |
| Discussion and decision |
| Sub heading: |
| Relevant provision of RP Act |
| On the scope and ambit of the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC |
| Four points on which the election of the applicant has been challenged in the connected election petition |
| On allegations that the applicant has disclosed only one FIR and not the other three FIRs |
| On allegations of failure of the applicant and his wife to disclose immovable and movable properties |
| On the allegations of non-disclosu |
Manohar Joshi v. Nitin Bhaurao Patil
Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal & Anr.
Biraji @ Brijraji & Anr. V. Surya Pratap & Ors.
F.A. Sappa & Ors. V. Singora & Ors.
Mopuragundu Thippeswamy v. K. Eranna
Samar Singh v. Kedarnath @ K.N. Singh & Ors.
D. Venkata Reddy v. R. Sultan & Ors.
Samant Balkrishna & Anr. v. George Fernandez & Ors.
Muniraju Gowda P.M. v. Muni Rathna & Ors.
Sajjan Sikaria & Ors. v. Shakuntala Devi Mishra & Ors.
Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat & Ors.
Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society v. Ponniamman Education Trust
Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali
Sopan Sukhdeo Sable & Ors. v. Assistant Charity Commissioner & Ors.
Madiraju Venkata Ramana Raju v. Peddireddigari Ramachandra Reddy
Ponnala Lakshmiah v. Kommuri Pratap Reddy & Ors.
Karim Uddin Barbhuiya v. Aminul Haque Laskar
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.