MANPHUL SINGH versus SURINDER SINGH

MANPHUL SINGH versus SURINDER SINGH

The High Court’s order permitting inspection of counterfoils was correct, as it classified and identified sufficient cases of impersonation supported by material evidence, establishing a prima facie case and justifying further investigation.

Parties
Appellant: Manphul Singh; Respondent: Surinder Singh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 November 1974
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Punjab and Haryana High Court Judgment Dated 4th February 1974
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Inspection of Ballot Papers, Impersonation in Voting, Election Petition Procedures
Election Law Inspection of Ballot Papers Impersonation in Voting Election Petition Procedures

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

Manphul Singh

Appellant

Surinder Singh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Punjab and Haryana High Court Judgment Dated 4th February 1974

Legal Issues

  1. 1 When may a party seek inspection of ballot papers in an election petition?
  2. 2 Whether the High Court applied the correct standard to allow inspection of ballot paper counterfoils

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court’s order permitting inspection of counterfoils was correct, as it classified and identified sufficient cases of impersonation supported by material evidence, establishing a prima facie case and justifying further investigation.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Permission to inspect counterfoils upheld.
  • High Court acted correctly in finding prima facie case for impersonation and multiple voting.