number of 1,47,073 votes have been counted. The votes counted are in excess of the number
of votes polled. Thus prima facie this ... Returning Officer regarding counting process, i.e., votes polled, votes given for counting, votes counted, invalid vote etc., there are discrepancies, inconsistencies and difference
majority of valid votes. According to him, the votes received
by the election petitioner have to be termed as invalid as the
writ petitioner ... validity of the votes cast
in the election. The votes cast in his favour (disqualified
candidate) cannot be characterized as invalid votes. They are
valid
Officer committed an error in counting the
votes. But, the admitted position is that two votes were
invalid and they were not counted. This ... secured 996 votes which is inclusive of two postal votes. The
first respondent secured 994 votes which is inclusive of two
postal votes
Manchappa secured four votes and
Shivamurthy secured five votes, but the Returning
Officer declared one vote that Shivamurthy secured
as invalid and as a consequence ... secured five votes, whereas
the Returning Officer states that out of five votes
that Shivamurthy got, one vote was invalid and as a
consequence, Shivamurthy
secured eleven votes, and respondent No.1 has secured ten
votes. But out of the eleven votes secured by petitioner, nine
votes have the extra ... considering the fact that out of eleven votes secured by the
petitioner, nine votes are invalid, the difference between the
votes cast in favour
2010 before
the trial Court on the ground that invalid votes are counted in favour
of the petitioner and valid votes in favour ... votes and third
respondent secured 595 votes. In the recounting it is stated that
petitioner secured 589 votes and third respondent secured 590 votes.
Thus
allege that the votes have been invalidly cast in favour of the other candidates and such invalid votes have been received and that he must ... inter alia alleged that the votes of certain persons who were dead including vote No. 462 were invalidly admitted. That being so, I am clearly
G. Shankaregowda vs Rathan Singh on 26 March, 1992
Equivalent citations: ILR1992KAR2565, 1992(3)KARLJ378
petitioner hereunder got 206 votes, one extra vote given to the petitioner herein was an invalid vote and the concerned authorities were wrong in taking ... respondent hereunder never gave the details and the description of the invalid vote. Therefore, the learned Judge was wrong in accepting the case
shareholders held, 256 persons attended the meeting and voted. Out of these votes, four votes were invalid. Out of the remaining 252 valid votes ... creditors who were present and had even voted but whose votes had been found to be invalid, could not be said to have voted because
