HARISH CHANDRA BAJPAI versus TRILOKI SINGH

HARISH CHANDRA BAJPAI versus TRILOKI SINGH

The Election Tribunal acted beyond its powers in allowing an amendment that introduced a new charge, altering the character of the petition after the expiry of the limitation period. There was no evidence establishing employment, and thus no corrupt practices under s. 123(7) or s. 123(8) of the Representation of the People Act were proven. The election petition was dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Harish Chandra Bajpai; Respondent: Triloki Singh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
21 December 1956
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave Against Judgment and Order Dated March 23, 1955, of the Election Tribunal, Lucknow
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Corrupt Practices, Employment in Elections, Representation of the People Act
Election Law Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Corrupt Practices Employment in Elections Representation of the People Act

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harish Chandra Bajpai

Appellant

Triloki Singh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave Against Judgment and Order Dated March 23, 1955, of the Election Tribunal, Lucknow

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Election Tribunal had power to allow amendment introducing new charges after limitation period under Representation of the People Act and Civil Procedure Code
  2. 2 Whether engagement of certain persons amounted to employment under s. 123(7) or s. 123(8) of Representation of the People Act

Ratio Decidendi

The Election Tribunal acted beyond its powers in allowing an amendment that introduced a new charge, altering the character of the petition after the expiry of the limitation period. There was no evidence establishing employment, and thus no corrupt practices under s. 123(7) or s. 123(8) of the Representation of the People Act were proven. The election petition was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of the Election Tribunal set aside
  • Election petition filed by respondent dismissed