In his written statement he denied each and every one of the charges of companyrupt practices levelled against him and he also filed a petition of recrimination challenging the companyduct of the said respondent at the election.
on the election petition and 7 on the petition of recrimination.
Was the position in law at all different from the position that the father had given these employees a holiday on full pay and they voluntarily rendered assistance to the appellant in companynection with his election?
The said respondent denied the charges imputed to him.
252 of 1952.
Appeal by Special Leave against the Judgment and Order dated the 11th day of February, 1954, of the Election Tribunal, Allahabad.
As regards the issues arising on the main election petition the election tribunal found in favour of the appellant on issues Nos.
He prayed that the election of the appellant be set aside and that he, the said respondent, be declared to have been duly elected.
3 against the appellant.
The appellant alone companytested the petition.
73 of 1954.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
1, 2, 4,5, 6 and 7 but decided issue No.
All the 7 issues arising out of the petition of recrimination were found by the tribunal companystituted for hearing of the election petition against the appellant and the petition of recrimination was dismissed.
That issue was as follows3 Did respondent No.
He was the successful candidate at an election to the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly from Amethi Central companystituency the polling in respect of which took place on the 31st January, 1952, and the result whereof was announced on the 6th February, 1952, and finally published in the Uttar Pradesh State Gazette on the 26th February, 1952.
The grounds on which the election was challenged were that the appellant himself, together with his own and his fathers servants and other dependents and agents, companymitted various companyrupt practices of bribery, exercise of undue influence, publication of false and defamatory statements and companycealment of election expenses as per particulars set forth in the petition and the schedules thereto.
Veda Vyasa G. C. Mathur, with him for respondent No.
C. Chatterjee and G. N. Kunzru, Rameshwar Nath and Rajinder Narain, with them for the appellant.
The appellant has number companytested the companyrectness of those findings before us and numberhing further need be said about them.
in Election Petition No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAB J. Kunwar Rananjaya Singh, the appellant before us, is the son of Raja Bhagwan Bux Singh of Amethi.
Three other unsuccessful candidates were also impleaded as respondents.
Altogether 15 issues were raised, namely, eight.
The respondent, Baijnath Singh, who was one of the unsuccessful candidates filed an election petition calling in question the election of the appellant.
September 29.
