MAGRAJ PATODIA versus R. K. BIRLA AND ORS.
No reliable evidence proved expenditure in excess of the prescribed limit was incurred by respondent No. 1 or with his authority or that of his election agent; only expenditures incurred with candidate's consent or authority are relevant under s. 77, and burden of proof lies with petitioner, which was not discharged.
- Parties
- Appellant: Magraj; Respondent No. 1: R. K. Birla; Respondent No. 2: Radheshyam Morarka
- Jurisdiction
- India
- Judgment Date
- 10 September 1970
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From Rajasthan High Court, Election Petition
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Election Expenses, Corrupt Practice, Burden of Proof, Appellate Costs
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Magraj
Appellant
R. K. Birla
Respondent No. 1
Radheshyam Morarka
Respondent No. 2
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Rajasthan High Court, Election Petition
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether expenditure in excess of prescribed limit was incurred or authorised by respondent or his election agent in violation of s. 77 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
- 2 Whether such expenditure constitutes corrupt practice under s. 123(6)
- 3 Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with findings of fact of the trial court
Ratio Decidendi
No reliable evidence proved expenditure in excess of the prescribed limit was incurred by respondent No. 1 or with his authority or that of his election agent; only expenditures incurred with candidate's consent or authority are relevant under s. 77, and burden of proof lies with petitioner, which was not discharged.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Parties to bear their own costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment