9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Disqualification of the appellant under section 7(d) read with section 9(2) of Act No. XLIII of 1951. Analysis: 1. The appeal challenged the Election Tribunal's decision declaring the appellant's election void due to disqualification under section 7(d) and section 9(2). Section 7(d) disqualifies a person interested in a government contract from being chosen as a legislative assembly member. Section 9(2) extends this disqualification to members of a Hindu undivided family if a contract is entered into on their behalf. 2. The contract in question involved felling trees in a government forest, falling under section 7(d). The dispute centered on whether the contract was on behalf of the joint family, to which the appellant belonged. The appellant denied any family interest, claiming the contract solely benefited another individual. 3. The Tribunal framed issues regarding the ownership of the contract's benefits by the joint family and whether the contractor was a name-lender. It found the appellant disqualified as the contract was on behalf of the joint family. The appellant contested this, arguing insufficient evidence of the contractor's role. 4. The Tribunal's findings were challenged on the contractor's identity and the family's interest in the contract. The appellant disputed the legal basis for considering a new business as joint family property under Hindu Law. 5. The Tribunal's presumption that the business started by the father was joint family property was critiqued. The appellant argued against treating the contract as a joint family concern solely based on the father's involvement. The Tribunal's decision was deemed legally flawed. 6. The judgment highlighted the need for evidence-based findings on whether the contract was entered into on behalf of the joint family. The case was remitted for a reevaluation based on factual evidence, rejecting the presumption of law. 7. The appellant contended that evidence supporting the joint family's involvement was insufficient, suggesting the Court could make a determination. However, the Court emphasized the necessity of a factual assessment by the Tribunal based on existing evidence. 8. The Court set aside the Tribunal's order and directed a reconstitution to determine if the contract was for the joint family or personal benefit. The decision emphasized evidence-based conclusions and barred additional evidence. Each party was to bear their costs.
|
