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

2009 Supreme(Ker) 889

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Ramaswamy – Appellant
Versus
Kamaraj Ponnuswamy – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioners:Siby Mathew, Advocate. For the Respondents: Murali Purushothaman, SC, K.S.E.COMM.

Judgment :-

"CR"

1. Petitioners are respondents in different petitions filed by the first respondent before the Kerala State Election Commission under Section 4 of the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1999, for short, the "Act".

2. The first respondent sent a petition to the Commission on 2.2.2009 by registered post alleging that the writ petitioners committed defection. The Commission's office received that on 4.2.2009, well within the period of fifteen days prescribed in Rule 4A(2) of the Kerala Local Authorities (Disqualification of Defected Members) Rules, 2000, for short, the "Rules".

3. Going by the files, the Commission's Secretary sent a letter by ordinary post on 16.2.2009 to the first respondent stating that the petition submitted through registered post could not be acted upon and that if the first respondent is desirous of filing petitions, he has to do so in terms of Civil Procedure Code either in person or through counsel. The first respondent pleads to have not got that. He thereafter filed different petitions under Section 4(1) of the Act and applied for condonation of delay in terms of clause 2 of Rule 4A of the Rules. The Commission condoned









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