NANGTHOMBAM IBOMCHA SINGH versus LEISANGHEM CHANDRAMANI SINGH & ORS.

NANGTHOMBAM IBOMCHA SINGH versus LEISANGHEM CHANDRAMANI SINGH & ORS.

The evidence did not prove that respondent No. 1 incurred election expenses in excess of the permissible limit. The Rs. 500/- paid to his party was before nomination and thus not to be included. The additional expenses alleged were not established by cogent evidence. The Court does not normally interfere with the High Court's view on oral evidence unless there is a glaring infirmity, which was not present.

Parties
Appellant: Nangthombam Ibomcha Singh; Respondent No. 1: Leisanghem Chandramani Singh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
13 September 1976
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Supreme Court Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Representation of the People Act 1951, Election Expenses, Disqualification From Legislative Assembly
Election Law Representation of the People Act 1951 Election Expenses Disqualification From Legislative Assembly

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

Parties

Nangthombam Ibomcha Singh

Appellant

Leisanghem Chandramani Singh

Respondent No. 1

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Supreme Court Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent No. 1 was disqualified from seeking election as Speaker of the Assembly (office of profit)
  2. 2 Whether respondent No. 1 incurred election expenses in excess of the statutory maximum and omitted relevant expenses

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence did not prove that respondent No. 1 incurred election expenses in excess of the permissible limit. The Rs. 500/- paid to his party was before nomination and thus not to be included. The additional expenses alleged were not established by cogent evidence. The Court does not normally interfere with the High Court's view on oral evidence unless there is a glaring infirmity, which was not present.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant and Respondent to bear their own costs.