Back
C. JAYACHANDRAN
Mani C Kappen, S/o. Cherian J. Kappen – Appellant
Versus
Sunny Joseph, S/o. Joseph – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The Election Petition is filed challenging the election of the first respondent from 093 Pala Assembly Constituency, alleging that the election was vitiated by undue influence and corrupt practices, as defined in the Representation of People Act, 1951 [hereinafter referred as 'the Act']. The first respondent in the Election Petition [returned candidate] preferred the above interlocutory application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking rejection of the Election Petition, as barred by limitation. Petitioner in the I.A.[first respondent in the Election Petition] would allege that the Election Petition was preferred beyond the time stipulated in Section 81 of the Act, which prescribes an outer limit of 45 days from the date of election of the returned candidate, which, in the present facts was on 02.05.2021. The period of 45 days expired on 16.06.2021, whereas, the Election Petition was filed only on 13.07.2021. The petition is therefore hopelessly barred by limitation is the submission. The orders passed by the Honourable Supreme Court extending the period of limitation in the wake of wide spread of COVID-19 pandemic will not apply to a proceedi
Honourable Supreme Court considered extension of time prescribed for performing a particular act, other than those cases where limitation is prescribed by general law or special law.
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 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 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 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 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 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....
An election petition must be presented within the statutory limitation period, and non-compliance with procedural requirements invalidates the petition, as confirmed by applicable case law.
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.
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
