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

2018 Supreme(Gau) 408

SUMAN SHYAM
CHANDAN KUMAR SARKAR – Appellant
Versus
NIRMALENDU BANIKYA – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. J. Deka, Mr. M. Ali.
For the Respondent: Mr. M.U. Mahmud, Mr. S. Sarmar.

JUDGMENT & ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. J. Deka, learned counsel for the applicant. I have also heard Mr. M. U. Mahmud, learned counsel representing the OP/election petitioner.

2. By filing the instant application under Order VI Rule 16 read with Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) the applicant/ respondent No.8 has prayed for striking off the pleadings contained in paragraphs 1 to 17, 19, 20 and 25 of the Election Petition and also for rejection of the petition on the ground that the Election Petition does not disclose any cause of action.

3. The opposite party/ election petitioner herein had unsuccessfully contested the election held on 11.04.2016 in respect of 35, Abhayapuri South (SC) Legislative Assembly Constituency of Assam wherein the respondent No.9, viz., Sri Ananta Kumar Malo, was declared as the elected candidate. The Election Petition had been filed on the grounds that 35, Abhayapuri South Legislative Assembly Constituency is reserved for the Schedule Caste (SC) candidates and since the respondent No.8 i.e. the present applicant does not belong to the Sch
























































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