RAM PADARATH MAHTO versus MISHRI SINGH & ANR.

RAM PADARATH MAHTO versus MISHRI SINGH & ANR.

The contract for stocking and storing foodgrains was one of bailment and not a contract for the performance of any service undertaken by the Government; thus, the appellant was not disqualified under s. 7(d) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Parties
Appellant: Ram Padarath Mahto; Respondent No. 1: Mishri Singh; Respondent No. 2: Baleshwar Ram
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
17 November 1960
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Order of the Patna High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed, High Court order set aside, matter remanded for further consideration on remaining issues.
Legal Topics
Disqualification for Membership, Representation of the People Act S.7(d), Contract With Government, Bailment, Joint Hindu Family, Nomination Rejection
Election Law Disqualification for Membership Representation of the People Act S.7(d) Contract With Government Bailment Joint Hindu Family Nomination Rejection

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

Ram Padarath Mahto

Appellant

Mishri Singh

Respondent No. 1

Baleshwar Ram

Respondent No. 2

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Order of the Patna High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was disqualified under s. 7(d) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 due to interest in a contract with the Government for performance of services.
  2. 2 Whether the contract of government stockist of grain amounted to a contract for the performance of services undertaken by the Government.

Ratio Decidendi

The contract for stocking and storing foodgrains was one of bailment and not a contract for the performance of any service undertaken by the Government; thus, the appellant was not disqualified under s. 7(d) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed, High Court order set aside, matter remanded for further consideration on remaining issues.

Orders

  • Set aside the order passed by the High Court.
  • Remand proceedings to the High Court to deal with the question whether improper rejection of the nomination renders both elections void and dispose of appeals accordingly.