TIRATH SINGH versus BACHITTAR SINGH AND OTHERS

TIRATH SINGH versus BACHITTAR SINGH AND OTHERS

The petition could not be dismissed for vagueness since the appellant did not call for particulars or show prejudice, and the requirement of notice under the proviso to Section 99 applies only to non-parties who lacked an opportunity to participate in the trial; thus, no additional notice was necessary to the appellant, a party to the petition, before being named under Section 99(1)(a)(ii).

Parties
Appellant: Tirath Singh; Respondents: Bachittar Singh and others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
15 September 1955
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal Under Article 133(1)(c) of the Constitution From Order of Pepsu High Court in Civil Misc. No. 182 of 1953
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Election Petition—vagueness of Particulars, Section 83 of Representation of the People Act, 1951, Notice for Disqualification Under Section 99 Representation of the People Act, Recommendation for Exemption From Disqualification, Jurisdiction of Tribunal
Election Law Constitutional Law Election Petition—vagueness of Particulars Section 83 of Representation of the People Act, 1951 Notice for Disqualification Under Section 99 Representation of the People Act,1951 Recommendation for Exemption From Disqualification Jurisdiction of 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tirath Singh

Appellant

Bachittar Singh and others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal Under Article 133(1)(c) of the Constitution From Order of Pepsu High Court in Civil Misc. No. 182 of 1953

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the election petition was liable to be dismissed for vagueness and want of particulars under Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
  2. 2 Whether notice under the proviso to Section 99 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is required to be given to parties to the petition before recording a finding of corrupt practice
  3. 3 Whether lack of specific notice vitiated the finding under Section 99(1)(a) of the Act against the appellant

Ratio Decidendi

The petition could not be dismissed for vagueness since the appellant did not call for particulars or show prejudice, and the requirement of notice under the proviso to Section 99 applies only to non-parties who lacked an opportunity to participate in the trial; thus, no additional notice was necessary to the appellant, a party to the petition, before being named under Section 99(1)(a)(ii).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs as respondents did not appear