Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Rajendra Singh Vs. Mahendra Singh

Rajendra Singh vs Mahendra Singh

Disposition Petition allowed Court Rajasthan Decided Sep 02, 1986
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/769327

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2227 of 1982
Subject
Election
Disposition
Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules, 1960 - Rule 79--Security deposit of Rs. 90/- not deposited with Election petition--Held, provisions of Rule are mandatory and Election petition shall stand dismissed.;Writ Allowed - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 [C.A. No. 59/1988]Sections 163-A & 166; [R.M. Lodha, ...

Key legal issue
Election
Outcome / disposition
Petition allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rajendra Singh

Respondent

Mahendra Singh

Legal References

Reported In
1986WLN(UC)492

Excerpt

rajasthan panchayat and nyaya panchayat election rules, 1960 - rule 79--security deposit of rs. 90/- not deposited with election petition--held, provisions of rule are mandatory and election petition shall stand dismissed.;writ allowed - motor vehicles act, 1988 [c.a. no. 59/1988]sections 163-a & 166; [r.m. lodha, shiv kumar sharma & ashok parihar, jj] award passed by tribunal under section 163-a nature of held, the award passed by tribunal under section 163-a of act under structured formula is a final award and once that award has been passed, no further award under chapter xii of m.v. act could be passed by the tribunal. the provisions contained in sections 163-a and 166 of act provide for two different modes but the two modes cannot simultaneously be invoked by the claimants. the claimant must opt/elect to go either for a proceeding under section 163-a or under section 166 of the m.v. act but not under both. the award under section 163-a is final and cannot be described as interim and no proceeding for compensation under section 166 can be undertaken once the award is declared under section 163-a. s.m. jain, j.1. the election of the petitioner as sarpanch of panchayat circle 3-m sahibsinghwala of panchayat samiti, sri ganganagar was challenged by respondent no. 1 mahendra singh by filing an election petition before the munsif (panchayat election tribunal) sri ganganagar, but the amount of security of rs. 50/- for the costs of opposite party was not deposited along with the election petition as required by rule 79(2) of the panchryat election rules, 1960. this court in gulab singh v. m.j.m. bhadra 1981 w.l.n. (u.c) 78 has held that the provisions of rule 79(2) are mandatory and the election tribunal could not entertain the election petition on account of non-compliance of rule 79(2). in the present case admittedly the security of rs. 50/-for costs of the opposite party was not deposited along with the election petition accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order of. munsif (panchayat election tribunal) sriganganagar dated 11-10-1912 is set aside and the election petition filed by respondent mahendra singh shall stand dismissed. there will be no order as to costs.

Full Judgment

S.M. Jain, J.

1. The election of the petitioner as Sarpanch of Panchayat Circle 3-M Sahibsinghwala of Panchayat Samiti, Sri Ganganagar was challenged by respondent No. 1 Mahendra singh by filing an election petition before the Munsif (Panchayat Election Tribunal) Sri Ganganagar, but the amount of security of Rs. 50/- for the costs of opposite party was not deposited along with the election petition as required by Rule 79(2) of the Panchryat Election Rules, 1960. This court in Gulab singh v. M.J.M. Bhadra 1981 W.L.N. (U.C) 78 has held that the provisions of Rule 79(2) are mandatory and the Election Tribunal could not entertain the election petition on account of non-compliance of Rule 79(2). In the present case admittedly the security of Rs. 50/-for costs of the opposite party was not deposited along with the election petition Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order of. Munsif (Panchayat Election Tribunal) Sriganganagar dated 11-10-1912 is set aside and the election petition filed by respondent Mahendra Singh shall stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial