KAMAL NARAIN SHARMA versus SHRI PANDIT DWARKA PRASAD MISHRA AND OTHERS

KAMAL NARAIN SHARMA versus SHRI PANDIT DWARKA PRASAD MISHRA AND OTHERS

An affidavit sworn by the Clerk of Court, who was appointed as Commissioner of Oaths under s. 139(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, satisfies the requirements of Rule 94A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, and cannot be excluded on technical grounds.

Parties
Appellant: Gamal Narain Suarma; Respondent No. 1: Shiu Pandit Dwarka Prasad Mishra; Respondent No. 1: Y. S. Dharmadhikari; Respondent No. 1: A. G. Ratnaparkhi
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
17 August 1965
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Madhya Pradesh High Court on Certificate
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Affidavit Requirements, Commissioner of Oaths, Conduct of Election Rules, Corrupt Practices, Procedural Validity
Election Law Affidavit Requirements Commissioner of Oaths Conduct of Election Rules Corrupt Practices Procedural Validity

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gamal Narain Suarma

Appellant

Shiu Pandit Dwarka Prasad Mishra

Respondent No. 1

Y. S. Dharmadhikari

Respondent No. 1

A. G. Ratnaparkhi

Respondent No. 1

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Madhya Pradesh High Court on Certificate

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an affidavit under Rule 94A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, sworn before a Clerk of Court appointed as Commissioner of Oaths under s. 139(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure is proper and fulfills statutory requirements

Ratio Decidendi

An affidavit sworn by the Clerk of Court, who was appointed as Commissioner of Oaths under s. 139(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, satisfies the requirements of Rule 94A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, and cannot be excluded on technical grounds.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • No order as to costs
  • Case remanded to Tribunal for decision on merits