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

1960 Supreme(SC) 133

K.N.WANCHOO, P.B.GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.C.DAS GUPTA
Brijendralal Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Jwalaprasad – Respondent


Advocates:
A.G.Ratnaparkhi, G.C.MATHUR, G.S.PATHAK, N.C.CHATTERJI, S.K.KAPOOR, Y.S.Dharmadhikari

P.B.GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.:

(1) DOES the failure of a candidate to specify his age as required by the prescribed form of the nomination paper amount to a defect of a substantial character under s. 36(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 43 of 1951 (hereinafter called the Act)? That is the point of law which arises for our decision in the present appeal. The said point arises in this way. On 25/02/1957, polling took place at the General Election to the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly from the Mamendragarh Double Member Constituency. Thirteen candidates had offered themselves for election either for the general or the reserved seat at the said election. Mr. Brijendralal Gupta, appellant 1 and Thakur Raghubir Singh, appellant 2, were the Congress candidates while respondents 1 and 7 had been adopted by the Praja SocialistParty, respondent 4 and one Sadhuram by the Jan Sangh and the remaining candidates had filed their nominations as independent candidates. Udebhan Tiwari, respondent 5, bad omitted to make the declaration regarding his age in his nomination paper. This defect was discovered at the time of the scrutiny of the nomination papers on 1/02/1957,






































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