REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

A Manju Appellant

V/S

Prajwal Revanna @ Prajwal R Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

KALAGHATIGI VS. WEST PATENT PRESS CO. LTD.,AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
PURUSHOTTAM VS. RETURNING OFFICER,AMRAVATI AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
MURARKA RADBEY SHYAM KAM KUMAR VS. ROOP SINGH RATHORE [REFERRED TO]
SUBBARAO VS. MEMBER ELECTION TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD [REFERRED TO]
NAGINDAS RAMDAS VS. DALPATRAM ICHHARAM ALIAS BRIJRAM [REFERRED TO]
MATTULAL VS. RADHE LAL [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. K S SUBRAMANIAN [REFERRED TO]
M KAMALAM VS. V A SYED MOHAMMED [REFERRED TO]
SHARIF UD DIN VS. ABDUL GANI LONE [REFERRED TO]
F A SAPA VAIVENGA SAIKAPTHIANGA ZALAWMA LALHUTHANGA VS. SINGORA:ZONUNTHARA:HRANGTHASANGA:T ROZAMA:ROMANA [REFERRED TO]
H D REVANNA VS. G PUTTASWAMY GOWDA [REFERRED TO]
T M JACOB VS. C POULOSE [REFERRED TO]
V NARAYANASWAMY VS. C P THIRUNAVUKKARASU [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDER SINGH VS. JANMEJA SINGH [REFERRED TO]
SARDAR HARCHARAN SINGH BRAR VS. SUKH DARSHAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
ANIL VASUDEV SALGAONKAR VS. NARESH KUSHALI SHIGAONKAR [REFERRED TO]
PONNALA LAKSHMAIAH VS. KOMMURI PRATAP REDDY [REFERRED TO]
B R PATIL VS. RAJEEV CHANDRASHEKAR [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNAMOORTHY VS. SIVAKUMAR [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In an Election Petition filed under section 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 challenging the election of respondent No.1 to the 16 - Hassan (General) Parliamentary Constituency held on 18.04.2019, respondent No.1 - the returned candidate has filed I.A.No.7/2019 under Order 7 Rule 11 and section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with section 86(1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 seeking dismissal of the Election Petition for non-compliance of Section 81(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the "RP Act").

(2.) The grounds urged in support of the application are set out in para 5 of the affidavit appended to the said application, which read as under:-

(3.) It is contended that, in view of the provisions of sections 81 and 83 of the RP Act, the election petition is not a valid petition in the eye of law and that because of non- compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Act, respondent No.1 is not in a position to take a proper defence and is prejudicially affected and therefore, the election petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold as per section 86(1) and proviso to section 83(1) of the RP Act.

Click here to view full judgment.

A MANJU Vs. PRAJWAL REVANNA @ PRAJWAL R

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address