SHRI CHANDRIKA PRASAD TRIPATHI versus SHRI SIV PRASAD CHANPURIA & OTHERS.

SHRI CHANDRIKA PRASAD TRIPATHI versus SHRI SIV PRASAD CHANPURIA & OTHERS.

An appeal lies to the High Court from the decision of the Tribunal dismissing an election petition under s. 90(3) as it is an order passed at the conclusion of trial and in substance under s. 98; substantial compliance with the requirements regarding security deposit under s. 117 is sufficient.

Parties
Appellant: Shri Chandrika Prasad Tripathi; Respondent 1: Shri Siv Prasad Chanpuria; Respondent 1: R. Mahali'f!gier
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 April 1959
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order of Madhya Pradesh High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Representation of the People Act, 1951, Election Petition Dismissal, Security Deposit Compliance, Appeals From Election Tribunal
Election Law Representation of the People Act, 1951 Election Petition Dismissal Security Deposit Compliance Appeals From Election Tribunal

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shri Chandrika Prasad Tripathi

Appellant

Shri Siv Prasad Chanpuria

Respondent 1

R. Mahali'f!gier

Respondent 1

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order of Madhya Pradesh High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an appeal lies to the High Court against the dismissal of the election petition under s. 90(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
  2. 2 Whether there was compliance with the provisions of s. 117 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 regarding security deposit

Ratio Decidendi

An appeal lies to the High Court from the decision of the Tribunal dismissing an election petition under s. 90(3) as it is an order passed at the conclusion of trial and in substance under s. 98; substantial compliance with the requirements regarding security deposit under s. 117 is sufficient.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal fails and dismissed with costs