LAXMINARAYAN AND ANOTHER versus RETURNING OFFICER AND OTHERS

LAXMINARAYAN AND ANOTHER versus RETURNING OFFICER AND OTHERS

The High Court was right in holding that there was no sufficient or credible evidence of corrupt practices by or with the consent of the returned candidate; the recount as ordered complied with Rule 63 and the pleas in the petition; the cost award cannot include counsel fees not shown to have actually been incurred.

Parties
Appellant: Laxminarayan; Appellant: Marotrao; Respondent: Returning Officer; Respondent: Jambuwantrao Dhote; Respondent: Respondent No. 3
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 September 1973
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Bombay High Court's Dismissal of Election Petition No. 3 of 1971
Outcome
Appeal partly allowed (only regarding counsel's fees; otherwise dismissed).
Legal Topics
Representation of the People Act, 1951, Corrupt Practice, Scope of Appellate Review, Costs in Election Petitions, Admissibility of Shorthand Notes, Meaning of 'incurred'
Election Law Representation of the People Act, 1951 Corrupt Practice Scope of Appellate Review Costs in Election Petitions Admissibility of Shorthand Notes Meaning of 'incurred'

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Laxminarayan

Appellant

Marotrao

Appellant

Returning Officer

Respondent

Jambuwantrao Dhote

Respondent

Respondent No. 3

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Bombay High Court's Dismissal of Election Petition No. 3 of 1971

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the counting and recounting of votes materially affected the result of the election under sections 100(1)(d)(iii) & (iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
  2. 2 Whether the returned candidate or his agents were guilty of corrupt practices under section 123(4)
  3. 3 Whether the High Court rightly rejected the application for inspection and recount

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court was right in holding that there was no sufficient or credible evidence of corrupt practices by or with the consent of the returned candidate; the recount as ordered complied with Rule 63 and the pleas in the petition; the cost award cannot include counsel fees not shown to have actually been incurred.

Court Disposition

Appeal partly allowed (only regarding counsel's fees; otherwise dismissed).

Orders

  • Costs to be awarded to the returned candidate only for amounts actually incurred and proved; not as a lump sum or scheduled figure.
  • Appeal otherwise dismissed; finding of the High Court upheld.