SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1965 Supreme(SC) 295

R. SATYANARAYAN RAJU, V. RAMASWAMI, P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR
Mahadeo – Appellant
Versus
Babu Udai Partap Singh – Respondent


Advocates:
Bimalesh Chandra Agarwal, BISHAN SINGH, C.P.LAL, J.P.GOYAL, M.C.SETALVAD

Judgement

GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I.: This short question which arises in this appeal is whether the Election Tribunal, Lucknow, and the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, were right in holding that the election of the appellant Mahadeo was invalid under S. 100 (1) (d) (iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (No. 43 of 1951) (hereinafter called the Act). The facts leading to this point are not many, and there is no dispute about them. At the General Elections of 1962, for the U. P. Legislative Assembly seat in Constituency No. 133 in Mijhaura, District Faizabad, 6 persons offered themselves as candidates. The appellant was one of them, and in fact, as a result of the election, he was duly declared to have been elected. Respondent No. 1. Udai Pratap Singh was another candidate. The appellant received 17,688 votes, whereas respondent No. 1 received 10,985 votes. There were 4 other candidates besides these two, but we are not concerned with them in the present appeal. Respondent No. 1 challenged the validity of the appellant s election by filing an election petition in that behalf before the Election Tribunal, Lucknow. It appears that the election symbol of th





















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top