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

1981 Supreme(SC) 160

A. P. SEN, Y. V. CHANDRACHUD
Aeltemesh Rein – Appellant
Versus
Chandulal Chandrakar – Respondent


Advocates:
Aeltemesh Rein, C.L.SAHU, G.N.Rao

Judgment

CHANDRACHUD, CJI.:- The appellant, Aeltemesh Rein, was candidate for election to the Lok Sabha from the Durg Parliamentary Constituency in the General Elections held in January, 1980. Respondent 1 having been declared as a successful candidate in the aforesaid election, the petitioner filed an election petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under Section 81 of the Representation of the people Act, 1951 (the Act). The appellant stated expressly in his election petition that the security amount of Rs. 2,000/-, was being deposited along with the petition as required by Section 117 of the Act but, in fact, no such deposit was made. The High Court dismissed the petition for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 117 and hence this appeal.

2. It is urged by the appellant who appeared in person before us that Sections 86 and 117 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, are ultra vires Article 329 (b) of the Constitution and, therefore, the High Court was in error in dismissing the election petition for the reason that the provisions of Section 117 were not complied with. We see no substance in this contention Article 329 (b) of the Constitution provides, in so fa





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