Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

AMARJIT SINGH versus CHARANJIT SINGH AND ORS.

Decided
8 January 2004
Judges listed
V.N. KHARE, S.H. KAPADIA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[2004] 1 S.C.R. 397 · 2004 INSC 27

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

A It is not dispuied that the polling had taken place by show of hands. It is also not disputed that the vote of Sher Singh, who cast his vote by show of hand for the respondent, was recorded and recorded votes were counted. Under such circumstances, the Presiding Officer could not have directed for re-poll in the garb of recounting of votes. We are of the view that the High Court has taken a correct decision.

p. 398

Before concluding, we may usefully refer to Blackwell's Law of Meetings-9th Edition, page 60. In common law voting at all meetings is by a show of hands. Voting by show of hands means counting the persons

p. 398

present who are entitled to vote and who choose to vote by holding up (raising) their hands. Any person having legal right to be present at the meeting may, at the conclusion of the voting, demand a poll and the Chairperson is the proper person to grant or refuse a poll which is in the nature of an appeal by one of the parties dissatisfied with the decision of the Chairperson upon the show of hands. In modem parliamentary usage a motion

p. 398

is carried by acclamation or by show of hands. The Chairman or the Presiding D Officer asks those present to indicate their vote or choice by holding up their hands. Once the Presiding Officer records the votes and, after counting the votes, declares the result, it is conclusive and it can be challenged only by a demand for poll. If the demand is not made, the Chainnan 's declaration

p. 398, margin C

will stand (see: Shackleton On The law And Practice of Meetings-8th Edition, pages 60-62.) Once a motion has been voted upon, it becomes a resolution of the meeting. The result of a vote once announced is final (see: The Rules of Debate in the Parliament of France by D. W.S. Lidderdule, page I 45). In the present case, we are in agreement with the view expressed by the High Court that it was not permissible for the Presiding Officer to change the vote

p. 398, margin C

of Sher Singh once it has been recorded in favour of the original petitioner under Punjab Municipal (President and Vice-President) Election Rules, 1994.

p. 398, margin E

'\.

p. 398, margin F

For foregoing reasons special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. R.P. Petition dismissed.

p. 398, margin F