It is number necessary for us to go into the grounds on which the election petition was dismissed by the High Court.
THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 1996 Present Honble Mr. Justice K.Ramaswamy Honble Mr. Justice B.L.Hansaria Honble Mr. Justice S.B.Majmudar C.Pathak, Ravinder Bagai, R.K.Gupta, Ms.Prerna Tandon and Ms.Naresh Bakshi, Advs.
The respondent secured 27216 votes while the appellant secured 25786 votes.
Though it was rejected by the High Court as one of the grounds against the rejection of the election petition, the respondent has filed cross objections.
The High Court dismissed his election petition under Section 86 of the Act on its findings on four issues framed in that case.
The elections were held on 6th November, 1993.
Suffice it to state that the objections raised by the respondent regarding number supply of the true companyy of the affidavit is a formidable objections which merits acceptance in view of the recent judgment of this Court in Dr. Smt.
The latter filed an election petition on diverse grounds including companyrupt practices under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Another companytention raised by the respondent was that the affidavit is number a true of companyy of the affidavit which was filed in the Court along with the election petition.
with him for the Respondent O R D E R The following order of the Court was delivered This appeal arises against to the order of the Delhi High Court made 26.5.1995 in Election Petition No.6/94.
for the appellant P.Bansal, Sr.
Pramod Dayal, Ajay K.Jain and Shashi Bhushan, Advs.,
The appellant is an unsuccessful candidate in respect of one of the Assembly Constituency known as No.64, Sadar Bazar, to the National Capital Territory of Delhi Assembly.
