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

1966 Supreme(MP) 18

H.R.KRISHNAN, S.B.SEN
MOTILAL VERMA – Appellant
Versus
NARAINPRASAD SAMPATRAM – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
L.S.SHUKLA, N.L.Maharshi, S.L.GARG

KRISHNAN, J.

( 1 ) BOTH these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution have been filed from the orders of fee First Additional District Judge at Indore on two election petitions, fee first (41) is an order of dismissal of fee petitioners' election petition under Rule 43 of fee Cantonment Electoral Rules in regard to an ejection to the Cantonment board at Mhow. The other petition (No. 43 of 1965) is by fee elected member whose election to the same cantonment board has been set aside on an election petition by the defeated candidate who is opposite party No. 1 in this Court. While the facts in controversy in the two cases are different they have one common point of law which has been raised as a preliminary issue here and which alone is being decided at this stage.

( 2 ) THE question is whether a petition under Rule 43 of the Cantonments Electoral rules can be enquired into and disposed of under Rule 45 by an Additional District judge to whom the District Judge transfers it, there having been no notification by the State Government prescribing the rank of fee "subordinate Judicial Officer" to whom the petition can be so transferred.

( 3 ) THIS resolves into consideration of, f













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