PANCHAPAKESA AYYAR, GANAPATIA PILLAI
Thangalakshmi Ammal – Appellant
Versus
Arunachalam – Respondent
The facts are briefly these: The appellant had stood for election from Ward No. 13 of the Tiruchirapalli Municipality, a double member constituency, one of the seats being reserved for a member of the scheduled castes. The appellant and respondents 1 to 7 were the eight candidates who stood for the election held on 10th October, 1955. Respondents 2, 3 and 7 alone were eligible to stand for the reserved seat. Respondent 3, who obtained 680 votes, was declared elected to the reserved seat. The appellant, who got 653 votes, as against the 2nd respondent who polled 652, was declared elected to the non-reserved seat on the strength of his having secured one more vote. The 1st respondent obtained only 616 votes. Respondents 1 and 2 filed O.P. No. 138 of 1956 to set aside the election of both the candidates who had been declared successful. The Election Commissioner pointed out that no allegation of the commission of any corrupt practice by the candidates or by their agents had been mentioned and pressed for adjudication,
Komaraswami Pillai v. Venkataramana Rao : [1956] 1 M.L.J. 40
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.