KONAPPA RUDRAPPA NADGOUDA versus VISHWANATH REDDY & ANR.

KONAPPA RUDRAPPA NADGOUDA versus VISHWANATH REDDY & ANR.

The respondent was disqualified under section 9A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as his partnership firm’s contracts with the State Government subsisted on the day of nomination. Maintenance and repair clauses constituted part of the contract, making it subsisting. Private dissolution of partnership...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Konappa Rudrappa Nadgouda; Respondent: Vishwanath Reddy; Respondent: State Government of Mysore
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
18 July 1968
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Judgment and Order Dated September 15, 1967
Outcome
Appeal allowed; election of first respondent declared void.
Legal Topics
Candidate Disqualification, Subsisting Government Contracts, Partnership Dissolution
Election Law Candidate Disqualification Subsisting Government Contracts Partnership Dissolution

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Konappa Rudrappa Nadgouda

Appellant

Vishwanath Reddy

Respondent

State Government of Mysore

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Judgment and Order Dated September 15, 1967

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether subsisting government contracts disqualify a candidate under s.9A of Representation of the People Act, 1951
  2. 2 Whether substantial completion of work removes candidate's disqualification
  3. 3 Whether private dissolution of partnership removes liability under government contract

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent was disqualified under section 9A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as his partnership firm’s contracts with the State Government subsisted on the day of nomination. Maintenance and repair clauses constituted part of the contract, making it subsisting. Private dissolution of partnership without notice to Government did not remove the contractual liability.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; election of first respondent declared void.

Orders

  • Election of first respondent is declared void under s.9A of Representation of the People Act, 1951.
  • Votes cast in favour of first respondent are treated as thrown away.