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

2010 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 88

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Not mentioned, Not mentioned
Laxman Sonboir v. B. D. Quireshi and Others


Table of Content
1. petitioner challenges election validity. (Para 1 , 1 , 2 , 3)
2. mandatory filing period for election petitions. (Para 4 , 5)
3. petition dismissed due to delay. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)

1. Heard.

The petitioner has challenged the validity of Electron for the Legislative Assembly Constituency No. 65, Bhilainagar District Drug (C.G.), by filing this Election Petition under S.80, S.80 - A and 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

2. Admittedly, the Election Petition is barred by limitation by 8 days, therefore, the petitioner has also filed an application for condonation of delay in the filing the petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay of 8 days in filing the Election Petition may kindly be condoned.

4. S.81 of the Act makes provisions for presentation of the petitions. Sub-section (1) provides that an election petition calling in question any election may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in sub-section (1) of S.100 and S.101 to the High Court by any candidate at such election or any elector within forty - five days from, but not earlier than, the date of election of returned

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