S. KHADER SHERIFF versus MUNNUSWAMI GOUNDER AND OTHERS.

S. KHADER SHERIFF versus MUNNUSWAMI GOUNDER AND OTHERS.

Election expenses include amounts paid to party funds when the candidate holds himself out—even prior to nomination—and failure to include such expenses, which breach the prescribed limit, constitutes a corrupt practice under section 123(7). The Tribunal’s factual findings on commencement of candidature and purpose of payments are not subject to review. Notice under section 99 proviso is unnecessary where appellant had opportunity to contest the charges during the election petition hearing.

Parties
Appellant: S. Khader Sheriff; Respondent: Munnuswami Gounder
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
15 September 1955
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave Under Article 136
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Election Expenses, Corrupt Practices, Candidature Commencement, Disqualification Procedures
Election Law Election Expenses Corrupt Practices Candidature Commencement Disqualification 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S. Khader Sheriff

Appellant

Munnuswami Gounder

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave Under Article 136

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether amounts paid to party funds prior to nomination are 'election expenses' within the meaning of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
  2. 2 Whether failure to include such amounts in the return of election expenses constitutes a contravention of section 123(7)
  3. 3 Whether notice is required under the proviso to section 99 before recording disqualification under section 140

Ratio Decidendi

Election expenses include amounts paid to party funds when the candidate holds himself out—even prior to nomination—and failure to include such expenses, which breach the prescribed limit, constitutes a corrupt practice under section 123(7). The Tribunal’s factual findings on commencement of candidature and purpose of payments are not subject to review. Notice under section 99 proviso is unnecessary where appellant had opportunity to contest the charges during the election petition hearing.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs