Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
ST Members Can Invoke Section 13B HMA If Hinduised By Customs: Chhattisgarh High Court
06 Mar 2026
Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
SANJAY K. AGRAWAL
Milind Kumar Gwalvanshi @ Milind Goutam S/o Pradeep Kumar Gwalvanshi – Appellant
Versus
Sahdeo Mahanad S/o Shri Chatur Mahanand – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER :
1. This civil revision has been preferred by the applicant herein/returned candidate under Section 441-F (2) of Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred as “the Act of 1956”) against the impugned order dated 05.02.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, Raipur in Election Petition No. 3/2015 by which his election on the post of Councillor of Ward No. 34 (Guru Govind Singh Ward) Municipal Corporation Raipur held on 04.01.2015 has been set aside and non-applicant/respondent No. 1 herein has been declared elected on the said post. The question of law that emanates for consideration in this civil revision as under:
Brief facts:
2. The applicant herein was declared elected as Councillor from Ward No. 34 (Guru Govind Singh Ward) of Municipal Corp
The Representation of People Act, 1951 mandates strict adherence to the limitation period for filing election petitions, and non-compliance results in dismissal without consideration of merits.
The Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to election petitions under the U.P. Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Act, and petitions filed beyond the specified timeframe are not maintainable.
The court established that the filing of an election petition must be strictly interpreted in accordance with the statutory time limits, and procedural delays in registration do not invalidate a time....
The election petition was dismissed for being filed beyond the 45-day limit set by the Representation of People Act, 1951, with no provision for condonation of delay.
The court established that the limitation period for filing election petitions under the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act is mandatory and cannot be extended or condoned, as there are no provisions allowing f....
The limitation period for election petitions under the Representation of the People Act is strict and cannot be extended, and claims of fraud must be substantiated with evidence.
The provisions of the Limitation Act, particularly Section 5, are not applicable to election petitions under the Assam Municipal Act, as it is a self-contained code governing its own limitations.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article