Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.82 seconds)Harish Chandra Bajpai vs Triloki Singh on 21 December, 1956
5. Learned counsel also invited my attention to Harish Chandra Bajpai v. Triloki Singh, AIR 1957 SC 444. That was a case under the Representation of the People Act. The question turned on the Interpretation of Section 83 as to whether the tribunal seized with the election petition was empowered to order amendment of the petition under Section 90(2) of the Act. Before the Supreme Court it was contended that Section 90(2) extends the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code to proceedings before tribunals only in respect of procedure and that power to order amendment under Order VI, Rule 17 is not within the extension. The Supreme Court overruled the objection, holding that the provisions of Chapter III read as a whole ally showed that 'trial' was used as meaning the entire proceedings before the tribunal from time when the petition was transferred to it under Section 86 until the pronouncement of the award. After discussing the various provisions of the Representation of the People Act the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that under Section 88(3) the tribunal had power to allow particulars in respect of illegal or corrupt practices to be amended, and further that the tribunal had power under Order VI, Rule 17 to order amendment of the petition, but that power could not be exercised so as
to permit new grounds or charges to be raised or to so alter the character of the petition as to make it in substance a new petition.
Section 10 in The Representation Of The People Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
1