KARIKHO KRI versus NUNEY TAYANG AND ANOTHER

KARIKHO KRI versus NUNEY TAYANG AND ANOTHER

The High Court erred in holding the election void: the three vehicles had been transferred by sale or gift prior to nomination and therefore their registration remaining in the names of the appellant's dependents did not amount to ownership/possession for the purposes relied upon by the High Court; the non-submission of the 'No Dues Certificate' and the tax disclosure issues were not defects of substantial character; the petitioner had not adequately pleaded or proved non-compliance under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) that materially affected the result; accordingly the appellant's election was upheld and the High Court judgment set aside.

Parties
Appellant: Karikho Kri; Respondent: Nuney Tayang; Other: Dr. Mohesh Chai
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (under Section 116 a of the Representation of the People Act, 1951) / Hearing and Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Civil Appeal No. 4615 of 2023 allowed; Judgment and Order dated 17.07.2023 of the Itanagar Bench of the Gauhati High Court set aside; election of Karikho Kri upheld; Civil Appeal No. 4716 of 2023 dismissed.
Legal Topics
Nomination, Disclosure of Assets, Corrupt Practice, Undue Influence, No Dues Certificate, Improper Acceptance of Nomination, Section 100(1)(b), Section 100(1)(d)(i), Section 100(1)(d)(iv), Section 123(2)
Election Law Constitutional Law Motor Vehicles Law Administrative Law Nomination Disclosure of Assets Corrupt Practice Undue Influence +6 more

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Karikho Kri

Appellant

Nuney Tayang

Respondent

Dr. Mohesh Chai

Other

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (under Section 116 a of the Representation of the People Act, 1951) / Hearing and Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether non-disclosure of three vehicles registered in names of candidate's dependent family members amounted to corrupt practice under Section 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
  2. 2 Whether non-submission of 'No Dues Certificate' for government accommodation and nondisclosure of municipal/property taxes rendered nomination defective
  3. 3 Whether acceptance of the returned candidate's nomination by the Returning Officer was improper and whether such improper acceptance materially affected the result under Sections 100(1)(d)(i) and 100(1)(d)(iv)

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in holding the election void: the three vehicles had been transferred by sale or gift prior to nomination and therefore their registration remaining in the names of the appellant's dependents did not amount to ownership/possession for the purposes relied upon by the High Court; the non-submission of the 'No Dues Certificate' and the tax disclosure issues were not defects of substantial character; the petitioner had not adequately pleaded or proved non-compliance under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) that materially affected the result; accordingly the appellant's election was upheld and the High Court judgment set aside.

Court Disposition

Civil Appeal No. 4615 of 2023 allowed; Judgment and Order dated 17.07.2023 of the Itanagar Bench of the Gauhati High Court set aside; election of Karikho Kri upheld; Civil Appeal No. 4716 of 2023 dismissed.

Orders

  • Judgment and Order dated 17.07.2023 passed by the Itanagar Bench of the Gauhati High Court in Election Petition No.01(AP) of 2019 set aside
  • Election of Karikho Kri from 44 Tezu (ST) Assembly Constituency upheld