Advanced Search Results

Ashok Shankarrao Chavan Vs. Anil Trayambakrao Patil

Court : Mumbai

Subject : ElectionLimitation

Reported in : (1988)90BOMLR39

P.V. Nirgudkar, J.1. This Civil Application is filed in Election Petition raising question of limitation that the Election Petition is barred by time.2. The above Election Petition has

Abhimanyu Rath Vs. Virendra Pandey

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Subject : Election

Acts : Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Sections 67A, 81 and 86(1); Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 5, 29 and 29(2)

Reported in : AIR1978MP112; 1978MPLJ189

was filed on 1-8-1977 and accordingly the office made a note indicating that the petition was barred by limitation as delayed by two days. According to the provisions of Section 81 of the Act, an election petition … ORDERJ.P. Bajpai, J.1. This is an election petition presented under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the

Shaik Saidulu @ Saida Vs. Chukka Yesu Ratnam and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Election

Acts : Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 - Sections 71, 71(2), 79, 80 and 671 and 671(2); General Clauses Act - Sections 10; Limitation Act, 1908 - Sections 4 to 24 and 29(2); Limitation (Amendment) Act, 1922 - Sections 29(2); Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227; Limitation Act, 1963; Representation of People Act, 1951

Reported in : AIR2002SC749; 2002(2)ALD7(SC); JT2002(1)SC247; 2002(1)SCALE296; (2002)3SCC130; [2002]1SCR403

Leave granted.Both the appeals are filed against the similar orders of the High Court by which the election petitions filed by the appellants under Section 71 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to … 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") were dismissed on the ground that such petitions were barred by limitation. The High Court held that the provisions of Section 671 of the Act were not applicable to an

C.P. Rai Vs. Krishan Lai Sharma

Court : Delhi

Subject : ElectionLimitation

Acts : Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 5; Representation of People Act, 1951 - Sections 81

Reported in : 1996(39)DRJ657

The election petition admittedly was accompanied by an application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Registry indicated in the aforesaid report that the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act … M.K. Sharma, J.(1) In this election petition presented under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as the

Yogesh Mangalsen Bahal Vs. Rajesh Chimanrao Wable and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Election

Acts : Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 - Sections 2(29), 6C, 16, 16(1), 16(2), 16(3), 25, 26, 33, 71, 71(2), 105, 105B, 105C, 105F, 217, 403, 403(4), 404, 411, 434, 435, 435(1), 439, 671 and 671(2); Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 5; Limitation Act, 1908 - Sections 5, 12 and 14; Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act; Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - Sections 5, 5B, 5C, 7, 9 and 9(6); Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 435 - Order 21; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 435 and 439; Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227

Reported in : 2008(5)BomCR243

under challenge the Misc. Application seeking condonation of delay has been allowed and delay in filing of the election petition has been condoned.3. Respondent No. 1 filed Election Petition against the petitioner in the Court of Civil … that the same is before the Judge of a Court specified in Section 2(29), then, the provisions of Limitation Act would apply. The provisions of Limitation Act and more particularly those referred in Section 435 would, therefore,

United States Vs. Oregon Lumber Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

Subject : Land Acquisition

suit in equity was brought by the United States with knowledge of all the facts, it constituted an election final and conclusive. Upon these facts the following questions are propounded by the circuit court of appeals: "1. … ground of fraud, and persisted in the suit after the defendant had pleaded in bar the statute of limitation applicable to such cases, and the plea was sustained and the bill dismissed, held that the government had

Randall Vs. Sorrell

Court : US Supreme Court

Subject : MRTP

after Act 64 became law, the petitioners-individuals who have run for state office, citizens who vote in state elections and contribute to campaigns, and political parties and committees participating in state politics-brought this suit against the respondents, … and Justice Alito, concluded in Parts I, II-B-3, III, and IV that both of Act 64’s sets of limitations are inconsistent with the First Amendment. Pp. 6-8, 10-29. 1. The expenditure limits violate the First Amendment’s free

Bhika Poona Kanpate Vs. the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gondia and o ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : ElectionLimitation

Acts : Bombay village Panchayats Act, 1958 - Sections 10(3), 15 and 26; Bombay village Panchayats (Amendment) Act, 1959; Bombay village Panchayats Election Rules, 1959 - Rules 7, 32, 32(3), 32(4), 33, 34, 34(1), 34(2), 34(3), 34(4), 35, 35(1), 35(2), 35(4), 36 and 37; Maharashtra Zilla Parishads Election Rules, 1962 - Rules 61, 62, 64, 65 and 66

Reported in : AIR1971Bom277; (1971)73BOMLR352; ILR1971Bom654; 1970MhLJ648

common question of law relating to limitation and hence this order will govern both.2. In these two petitions, elections to Ward No. 1 and Ward No. 3 of village Ledada, tahsil Gondia, District Bhandara are being challenged.

Kameshwar Singh Son of Sri Rajeshwar Singh Vs. Surya Narayan Rai Son o ...

Court : Patna

Subject : Election

Acts : Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 - Sections 81, 82, 86(1), 86(4), 86(5), 87(1), 117, 137 and 137(2); Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 2006 - Rule 106, 106(1) and 106(2); Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 6, Rule 17 - Order 1, Rule 10; Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 29(2); Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Sections 82, 83, 86 and 86(1); G.P. Act, 1993

learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 and learned Counsels for the State Election Commission and for Respondent Nos. 4 to 7.2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 11.7.2007 passed … results were published i.e., 16.6.2006, and therefore since an application on the said date would be barred by limitation, hence the addition of parties also would not be allowed after the expiry of the period of 30

Dibakar Patra Vs. Jatadhari Mishra and ors.

Court : Orissa

Subject : ElectionLimitation

Acts : Orissa Zilla Parishad Act - Sections 32; Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959 - Sections 44B; Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227; Representation of People's Act - Sections 87

Reported in : 101(2006)CLT96; 2005(II)OLR628

Puri Zilla Parishad, has challenged the order dated 3.4.2004 (Annexure-4) passed by the learned District Judge, Puri in Election Misc. Case No. 70 of 2002 allowing the amendment of the election petition.2. Petitioner was elected as a … prayer with the plea that the amendment would introduce a new plea, which has already become barred by limitation. Learned District Judge, Puri, after hearing the parties, passed the impugned order dated 3.4.2004 allowing the said amendment.