MANGI LAL versus K. R. PAWAR & ANR.

MANGI LAL versus K. R. PAWAR & ANR.

Appellant failed to prove statements were false and published with respondent's knowledge of their falsity as required by s. 123(4). No evidence established excess expenses connected to the election; merely being Chairman of a company supplying electricity did not disqualify respondent under s. 9A.

Parties
Appellant: Mangi Lal Joshi; Respondent No. 1: Krishnaji Rao Pawar; Respondent No. 2: State Government of Madhya Pradesh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
07 May 1971
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Election Petition by High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Corrupt Practices, Election Expenses, Disqualification for Government Contracts
Election Law Corrupt Practices Election Expenses Disqualification for Government Contracts

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

Parties

Mangi Lal Joshi

Appellant

Krishnaji Rao Pawar

Respondent No. 1

State Government of Madhya Pradesh

Respondent No. 2

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Election Petition by High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether publication of statements relating to applicant's personal character and conduct constituted a corrupt practice under s. 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
  2. 2 Whether respondent incurred election expenses beyond the prescribed limit under s. 77 of the Act and r. 90 of the Election Rules
  3. 3 Whether respondent was disqualified under s. 9A of the Act for having a subsisting contract with the State Government

Ratio Decidendi

Appellant failed to prove statements were false and published with respondent's knowledge of their falsity as required by s. 123(4). No evidence established excess expenses connected to the election; merely being Chairman of a company supplying electricity did not disqualify respondent under s. 9A.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Respondent awarded costs