LAKHI PRASAD AGARWAL versus NATHMAL DOKANIA

LAKHI PRASAD AGARWAL versus NATHMAL DOKANIA

As the pleadings in the election petition did not allege particulars sufficient for claims under s. 123(2), (3), or (4) of the Act, and evidence failed to show collusion or mala fide on the part of the Returning Officer in the appellant's arrest, no corrupt practice or electoral violation was established. Arguments not supported by the pleadings could not be entertained.

Parties
Appellant: Lakhi Prasad Agarwal; Respondent: Nathmal Dokania
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
06 September 1968
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Corrupt Practices, Pleadings Requirements, Undue Influence, Election Campaign Conduct
Election Law Corrupt Practices Pleadings Requirements Undue Influence Election Campaign Conduct

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lakhi Prasad Agarwal

Appellant

Nathmal Dokania

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether references in the pamphlet constitute undue influence under s. 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
  2. 2 Whether the use of religious mandates amounts to use of a religious symbol under s. 123(3) of the Act.
  3. 3 Whether publication by candidate or agent of false statements regarding personal character or candidature attracts s. 123(4) of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi

As the pleadings in the election petition did not allege particulars sufficient for claims under s. 123(2), (3), or (4) of the Act, and evidence failed to show collusion or mala fide on the part of the Returning Officer in the appellant's arrest, no corrupt practice or electoral violation was established. Arguments not supported by the pleadings could not be entertained.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Appellant to pay costs.