SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(SC) 458

D. M. DHARMADHIKARI
Raj Kumar Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Samir Kumar Mahaseth – Respondent


Judgment

R.C. Lahoti, CJI—An election petition presented under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter “the Act”, for short) has been directed to be dismissed as barred by time. Feeling aggrieved, the election petitioner has filed this appeal under Section 116A of the Act.

2. Shorn of all details, suffice it to state that the last date of limitation for presenting the election petition was 28.8.2003. What transpired in the High Court at the presentation may be described in the words of the learned designated Election Judge himself from the impugned judgment of the High Court. The relevant part is extracted and reproduced hereunder:

“...The admitted position is that the period of limitation of forty five days expired on 27.8.2003 on which date the designated Judge was sitting in court till 4.15 P.M. The court hours having expired, the designated election Judge retired into the chambers where at 4.45 P.M. Sri P.K. Verma, the learned counsel for the appellant came and wanted to file this election petition. Since under High Court Rules the election petitions could be filed only in the open court, I, as the designated election Judge refused to accept the petit























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top