CHARAN LAL SAHU versus NANDKISHORE BHATT & ORS.

CHARAN LAL SAHU versus NANDKISHORE BHATT & ORS.

Non-deposit of the security along with the election petition as required under Section 117 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 leaves no option to the Court but to reject it. The provisions are mandatory, and the High Court cannot reduce or dispense with the requirement.

Parties
Appellant: Charan Lal Sahu; Respondent: Nandkishore Bhati; Respondent: Respondent No. 5; Respondent: Respondent No. 4
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 August 1973
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From High Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Election Petitions, Security Deposit, Statutory Compliance
Election Law Election Petitions Security Deposit Statutory Compliance

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charan Lal Sahu

Appellant

Nandkishore Bhati

Respondent

Respondent No. 5

Respondent

Respondent No. 4

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the provisions of Section 117 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 for deposit of security are mandatory or directory
  2. 2 Whether an election petition can be dismissed for non-compliance with Section 117 before the trial commences

Ratio Decidendi

Non-deposit of the security along with the election petition as required under Section 117 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 leaves no option to the Court but to reject it. The provisions are mandatory, and the High Court cannot reduce or dispense with the requirement.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.