TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the challenge to the order directing recount could be reopened in appeal after dismissal of the earlier special leave petition. (ii) Whether the alleged irregularities in counting and the post-declaration handling of election material justified setting aside the election or ordering a partial repoll. (iii) Whether the objectionable allegations made against the High Court warranted further action, despite the apology tendered.
Issue (i): Whether the challenge to the order directing recount could be reopened in appeal after dismissal of the earlier special leave petition.
Analysis: The earlier dismissal of the special leave petition against the recount order, after hearing both sides, rendered that issue final between the parties. The same objection could not be reagitated in the appeal. The principle applied was that a party bound by an earlier final order cannot reopen the very question in subsequent proceedings.
Conclusion: The challenge to the recount order was barred and could not be reopened.
Issue (ii): Whether the alleged irregularities in counting and the post-declaration handling of election material justified setting aside the election or ordering a partial repoll.
Analysis: The recount and inspection did not substantiate the pleaded counting irregularities. The record, taken as a whole, showed that the forms and tallies were substantially correct, and the appellant in fact lost votes on recount. As to the allegation of broken or missing seals on some packets, the Court held that post-declaration irregularities in custody or forwarding of election material, without proof that they materially affected the result or fell within the statutory grounds for avoidance, do not by themselves void an election. The Court further held that the pleadings did not make out a case for repoll on the facts.
Conclusion: No ground was made out to set aside the election or to direct a partial repoll.
Issue (iii): Whether the objectionable allegations made against the High Court warranted further action, despite the apology tendered.
Analysis: The language used in the stay application and transfer petition was held to be intemperate and scandalous, amounting to contemptuous conduct. However, the appellant expressed an unqualified apology, which the Court found to be genuine and repentant.
Conclusion: The apology was accepted and the matter was left at that.
Final Conclusion: The election appeal failed on merits, the High Court's dismissal of the election petition was upheld, and the apology tendered for the scandalous pleadings was accepted with a strong admonition.
Ratio Decidendi: An election can be avoided only on statutory grounds, and post-declaration irregularities in the custody or sealing of election material do not by themselves vitiate the result unless they are shown to have materially affected the election; a previously dismissed special leave petition also bars reopening the same issue between the parties.
TaxTMI 
