KALYAN RAI SURANA
Karim Uddin Barbhuiya – Appellant
Versus
Anamul Haque – Respondent
ORDER :
| S. No. | Particulars |
| 1. | Parties to this I.A. |
| 2. | Prayer in this I.A. |
| 3. | Contention on behalf of the respondent |
| 4. | Stand of the petitioner |
| 5. | Issues |
| 6. | On issue no. (a) |
| 7. | On issue no. (b) |
| 8. | On issue no. (c) |
| 9. | On issue no. (d) |
| 10. | On issue no. (e) |
| 11. | Order |
1. Heard Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I. Kalita, learned counsel for the applicant. None appears on call for the opposite party.
Parties to this application:
2. The applicant herein, namely, Karim Uddin Borbhuiya, is the returned candidate, whose election has been challenged by the opposite party herein, namely, Anamul Haque.
3. Hence, for the sake of convenience, in this order, the term “petitioner” will denote the “election petitioner” and the word “respondent” will denote the returned candidate. In the connected election petition, there is only one respondent.
Prayer in this interlocutory application:
4. The respondent, by filing this interlocutory application, has prayed for rejection of the election petition under the provision of Order VII, Rule 11 of t
Charan Lal Sahu v. Nandkishore Bhatt
Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narayan Mishra
In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation
K. Kamaraja Nadar v. Kunju Thevar & Ors. 1958 INSC 48 : AIR 1958 SC 687
K. Kamaraja Nadar v. Kunju Thevar
Mallappa Basappa v. Basavaraj Ayyappa
Munna Lal Jain v. Bipin Kumar Sharma
N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi
Election petitions must comply with mandatory provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, including timely filing and joining necessary parties, or they will be dismissed.
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.
Election petitions must be filed within 45 days of election results; failure to comply with statutory requirements leads to dismissal.
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 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 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 provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act do not apply to election petitions under the U.P. Municipalities Act, as governed by special procedural laws.
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 time period for substituting candidates in election petitions under Section 116 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is mandatory, and failure to comply within the specified 14 days resu....
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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.