Monetary Claims in Matrimonial Disputes Cannot Survive Without Evidence: Kerala High Court Rejects ₹1.24 Crore Claim for Lack of Proof Oral Partition Can Defeat Coparcenary Claims, But Not Statutory Succession: Madras High Court Draws Sharp Line Between Section 6 And Section 8 Substantial Compliance with Section 83 Is Sufficient—Election Petition Not to Be Dismissed on Hypertechnical Grounds: Orissa High Court Oral Family Arrangement Can’t Be Rewritten By Daughters, But Father’s Share Still Opens To Succession: Madras High Court Rebalances Coparcenary Rights Section 173(8) of CrPC | Power to Order Further Investigation Exists—But Not to Dictate How It Should Be Done: Rajasthan High Court Constitution Does Not Envisage a Choice Between Environmental Protection and Rule of Law: Supreme Court Lays Down Due Process Framework for Eviction from Assam Reserved Forests Coercion Is Not Always Physical — Within Families, Subservience To Elder's Authority May Constitute Undue Influence: Supreme Court Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Alleging Fraud in Family Partition Cannot be Rejected at Threshold; ‘Conciliation Award’ Requires Strict Statutory Compliance: Supreme Court Execution Court Cannot Decide Validity of Partition Deed:  Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Divide Between Civil and Execution Courts Constructive Res Judicata Cannot Defeat Explicit Liberty to Sue: Supreme Court Upholds Right to Challenge Family Partition Deed Despite Earlier Proceedings Photocopy Is Not Proof – PoA Must Be Proven Before Property Can Be Sold: Supreme Court Holds Sale Deeds Void for Want of Valid Power of Attorney Serious Charges Alone Cannot Justify Indefinite Custody: Supreme Court Grants Bail in Pune Crash Conspiracy Case Final Decree in Partition Suit Must Be Fully Stamped to Be Executable: Calcutta High Court Grants Liberty to Decree Holder to Cure Defect Issuance of Cheque by Accused Voluntarily on Behalf of Brother Attracts Liability Under Section 138 NI Act: Delhi High Court Section 23 Protects Trust, Not Technicalities: Karnataka High Court Annuls Gift by 84-Year-Old Father Misquoting IPC Sections Doesn’t Vitiate Chargesheet: Kerala High Court Section 187(2) BNSS | Absence of Accused While Granting Extension to File Challan Vitiates Order: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail in NDPS Case" Reports Prepared During Criminal Proceedings Not Per Se Admissible In Consumer Proceedings Unless Duly Proved In Accordance Consumer Protection Act: NCDRC Declaration of Account as Fraud Without Supplying Basis of Allegation Violates Audi Alteram Partem: Calcutta High Court Quashes Article 22(2) | Detention Without Magistrate’s Authority Beyond 24 Hours Is Constitutional Breach: Delhi High Court Grants Bail in MCOCA Case Service Tax on Individual Advocate? Not When Notifications Say ‘Nil’: Bombay High Court Quashes Demand and Bank Lien Plea That Property Belongs Exclusively To One Spouse Despite Joint Title Is Barred Under Section 4 Benami Transactions Act: Madras High Court

Disclosure of Assets and Government Dues Not of Substantial Nature to Invalidate Election: Supreme Court Upholds Election of Karikho Kri

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India reversed the decision of the High Court, which had declared the election of Karikho Kri void, asserting that the disclosures made by him were substantial and the non-disclosures did not materially affect the election.

The Supreme Court held that non-disclosure of certain assets, specifically three vehicles, and failure to submit a ‘No Dues Certificate’ related to government accommodation, were not defects of substantial nature to impact the validity of Karikho Kri’s election. Furthermore, the partial non-disclosure of municipal/property taxes was not considered pressing.

Karikho Kri’s election was challenged on grounds of non-disclosure of assets and dues under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The High Court declared his election void, but the Supreme Court took a different view.

Non-Disclosure of Assets: The Court noted that the vehicles in question were either sold or gifted before the nomination. This ownership change, despite being unregistered, did not equate to current ownership or possession by Kri’s family members. Hence, this non-disclosure was not deemed significant enough to influence the election outcome.

‘No Dues Certificate’ and Government Accommodation: The Court found that Kri’s failure to disclose previous occupancy of government accommodation and submit a ‘No Dues Certificate’ did not constitute a defect of a substantial nature as there were no outstanding dues.

Disclosure of Municipal/Property Taxes: The Court considered the partial non-disclosure of taxes as not of substantial nature affecting the election.

Upholding Election of Karikho Kri: The Court allowed the appeal filed by Kri, upholding his election and setting aside the judgment of the High Court. The grounds under Sections 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d)(i), and 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, were not established to invalidate his election.

Decision: The Supreme Court upheld the election of Karikho Kri, allowing Civil Appeal No. 4615 of 2023 and dismissing Civil Appeal No. 4716 of 2023 filed by Nuney Tayang.

Date of Decision: April 9, 2024

KARIKHO KRI vs. NUNEY TAYANG AND ANOTHER

 

Latest Legal News