R. C. LAHOTI, S. RAJENDRA BABU, A. S. ANAND
Shivajirao B. Patil Kawekar – Appellant
Versus
Vilasrao D. Deshmukh – Respondent
JUDGMENT
R.C. Lahoti, J. -This is an appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter RPA, for short) preferred by a candidate successful at the election but against whom an election petition filed by a candidate who had lost at the election has been allowed by the High Court on the ground of commission of corrupt practices as defined in sub-sections (3A) and (4) of Section 123 of the RPA. For the sake of convenience the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before this Court in this appeal, that is to say, Vilasrao Dagdojirao Deshmukh who had filed the election petition and is arrayed as respondent in this appeal shall be referred to as the respondent and Shivajirao Balwantrao Patil Kawekar who was arrayed as defendant/respondent before the High Court and is appellant before us shall be referred to as the appellant.
2. Elections to the Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly from 206 - Latur Assembly constituency took place on 9.2.1995. The respondent was a candidate sponsored by Congress (I). The appellant was sponsored by Janta Dal. Result of the election was declared on 12.3.1995. The respondent got 79077 votes while the appellant secu
Sri Harasingh Charan Mohanty v. Surendra Mohanty
Samant N. Balkrishna v. George Fernandez
Charan Lal Sahu v. Giani Jail Singh
Manohar Joshi v. Nitin Bhaurao Patil & Anr.
Prof. Ramchandra G. Kapse v. Haribansh Ramakbal Singh
Chandrakanta Goyal v. Sohan Singh Jodh Singh Kohli
Moreshwar Save v. Dwarkadas Yashwantrao Pathrikar
Ramakant Mayekar v. Celine D silva
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.