Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 62 (1.82 seconds)
Documents citing Vishwanatha Reddy vs Konappa Rudrappa Nadgouda And Anr. on 13 September, 1968

V.Sahadevan vs C.Ayyakalai on 10 September, 2008

59. The ratio decidendi of Vishwanatha Vs. Konappa (AIR 1969 SC 604) is applicable only where (a) there are two contesting candidates and one of them is disqualified, (b) and the election is on the basis of single non-transferable vote. Both these conditions do not exist in the present case. As already discussed, Shri Subrahmanyan appellant was not the sole surviving continuing candidate left in the field, after exclusion of the disqualified candidate, Shri John. The election in question was not held by mode of single transferable vote, according to which a simple majority of votes secured ensures the success of a candidate, but by proportional representation with single transferable vote, under which system the success of a candidate normally depends on his securing the requisite quota.
Madras High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 1 - V Ramasubramanian - Full Document

Mohd Sohraab vs Mohd Nafees on 20 January, 2026

60. The ratio decidendi of Vishwanatha v. Konappa is applicable only where (a) there are two contesting candidates and one of them is disqualified, (b) and the election is on the basis of single non-transferable vote. Both these conditions do not exist in the present case. As already discussed, Shri Subrahmanyam appellant was not the sole surviving continuing candidate left in the field, after exclusion of the disqualified candidate, Shri John. The election in question was not held by mode of single transferable vote, according to which, a simple majority of votes secured ensures the success of a candidate, but by proportional representation with single transferable vote, under which system the success of a candidate normally depends on his securing the requisite quota.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Peedika Rajanna Dora vs Rajendra Prathap Bhanj Deo And Anr. on 10 March, 2006

In Vishwanatha Reddy v. Konuppa Rudrappa Nadgouda and Anr. (supra), the Supreme Court held that when there are only two contesting candidates, election of the returned candidate was found to be void on the ground of statutory disqualification on the date of filing of the nominations, the other contesting candidate can be declared as elected and fresh pole is not necessary. It was also held that Section 53 of the Representation of People Act provides that if the number of contesting candidates is more than the number of seats to be filled, a poll shall be taken. In the case on hand, only two candidates contested for the "10 Salur (ST) Legislative Assembly Constituency'. The election petitioner secured 46,087 votes whereas first respondent, who is the returned candidate, secured 48,580 votes. Since the first respondent suffers from statutory disqualification, the votes cast in his favour have to be regarded as thrown away irrespective of whether the voters were aware of the disqualification. When once the votes secured by the first respondent are treated as thrown away votes, the only candidate remained in the field is the election petitioner and thus, he is entitled to be declared as duly elected.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 38 - Cited by 3 - B S Reddy - Full Document

Smt. S. Rukmini Madegowda, vs The State Election Commission, on 26 May, 2021

In Vishwanatha Reddy v. Konappa Rudrappa Nadgouda, the Constitution Bench of this Court treated the votes polled in favour of the returned candidate as thrown away votes, on the ground that he was disqualified from contesting and that the election petitioner was entitled to be declared elected, in view of the fact that there was no other contesting candidate. But the Constitution Bench cautioned that the rule for the exclusion of the votes secured by corrupt practices by the returned candidate in the computation of the total votes and the consequential declaration of the candidate who secured the next highest number of votes as duly 109 elected, can be applied only when there are just two candidates at an election.
Karnataka High Court Cites 80 - Cited by 0 - N S Gowda - Full Document

Ritu Devi vs State Of Up And 9 Others on 20 December, 2024

"24. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, in our view, the impugned order passed by the High Court declaring the election petitioner as elected on the ground that the votes cast in favour of the elected candidate (appellant) are thrown away was totally erroneous and cannot be justified. As held by the Constitution Bench in Konappa case [(1969) 2 SCR 90 : AIR 1969 SC 604 sub nom Vishwanatha Reddy v. Konappa Rudrappa Nadgouda] that some general rule of election law prevailing in the United Kingdom that the votes cast in favour of a person who is found disqualified for election may be regarded as "thrown away" only if the voters had noticed before the poll the disqualification of the candidate, has no application in our country and has only merit of antiquity. We would observe that the question of sending such notice to all voters appears to us alien to the Act and the Rules. But that question is not required to be dealt with in this matter. As stated earlier, in the present case, for one seat, there were five candidates and it would be impossible to predict or guess in whose favour the voters would have voted if they were aware that the elected candidate was disqualified to contest election or if he was not permitted to contest the election by rejecting his nomination paper on the ground of disqualification to contest the election and what would have been the voting pattern. Therefore, order passed by the High Court declaring the election petitioner Dr Vijay Kumar Khandre as elected requires to be set aside."
Allahabad High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - R R Agarwal - Full Document

Kameng Dolo vs Atum Welly on 9 May, 2017

In this regard, learned counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention to the Constitution Bench decision in Vishwanatha Reddy v. Konappa Rudrappa Nadgouda39. In the said case, there were only two contesting candidates and one of them was under a statutory disqualification. The Court held that Section 53 of the Act renders the poll necessary if there are more candidates contesting the election than the number of seats contested. The Court distinguished the rule enunciated by the courts in the United Kingdom and stated that same cannot be extended to the trial of disputes under our election law, for it is not consistent with our Indian Statute Law and in any case the conditions prevailing in our country do not justify the application of the rule. Analysing further, where there are only two contesting candidates and one suffers a statutory disqualification, the Court held:
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 63 - Cited by 0 - D Misra - Full Document

Mr. Ashok Rajaram Raul vs Mr. Mandar Pramod Vichare And Ors on 17 May, 2021

45. Mr Dhakephalkar the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Vishwanatha Reddy Vs. Konappa Rudrappa Nadgouda and Anr. 2, D.K.Sharma Vs. Ram Sharan Yadav and others 3 and the decision in Dnyaneshwar Rambhau Barabudhe Vs. Returning Officer /Dy. Collector (EGS), Amravati & Ors.4. He submits that the first respondent could not have been declared elected by 'throwing away' the votes cast in favour of the petitioner. He therefore submitted that the learned Judge was in error in declaring the first respondent elected.
Bombay High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - C V Bhadang - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next