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

2000 Supreme(SC) 1626

A. S. ANAND, R. C. LAHOTI, K. G. BALAKRISHNAN
Tarun Prasad Chatterjee – Appellant
Versus
Dinanath Sharma – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Balakrishnan, J.-The short question involved in the present appeal is whether in computing the period for limitation as provided in Section 81(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter mentioned as "R.P. Act, 1951"), the date of election of the returned candidate should be excluded or not.

2. The appellant and the respondent herein contested the election of the Legislative Assembly held on 25.11.1998 from 127, Raipur Gramin Assembly Constituency of Madhya Pradesh. The appellant was declared elected on 28.11.1998. The respondent filed an Election Petition under Section 81(1) of the R.P. Act, 1951 challenging the election of the appellant. That Petition was filed on 12.1.1999. The appellant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. read with Section 81 of the R.P. Act 1951, praying that the Election Petition was liable to be dismissed at the threshold as not maintainable as the same had not been filed within 45 days from the date of election of the returned candidate. The respondent contented that in view of Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the Election Petition was filed in time. The plea of the respondent- Election Petitioner was accept




























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