REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Jitendra R. Sukhadia Appellant

V/S

Kanchanbhai Shanabhai Rana Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

P. K. K. SHAMSUDEEN V. K. A. M. MAPPILLAI MOHINDEEN AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
LALIT KISHORE CHATURVEDI V. JAGDISH PRASAD THADA [REFERRED TO]
IQBAL SINGH V. AVTAR SINGH AND ORS.,AIR 1993 P [REFERRED TO]
CHARAN DASS V. SURINDER KUMAR AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
JAGJIT SINGH V. DHARAM. PAL SINGH AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
SAHODRABAI RAI VS. RAM SINGH AHARWAR [REFERRED TO]
SAMANT N BALKRISHNA VS. GEORGE FERNANDEZ [REFERRED TO]
JITENDRA BAHADUR SINGH VS. KIRSHNA BEHARI [REFERRED TO]
SATYA NARAIN VS. DHUJA RAM [REFERRED TO]
BHABHI VS. SHEO GOVIND [REFERRED TO]
R NARAYANAN VS. S SEMMALAI [REFERRED TO]
S RAGHBIR SINGH GILL VS. S GURCHARAN SINGH TOHRA [REFERRED TO]
SHRADHA DEVI VS. KRISHNA CHANDRA PANT [REFERRED TO]
M KARUNANIDHI R RANGASAMI A CHINNADURAI R PERIASAMY A CHINDRASEKHARAN VS. H V HANDE AND OTHRS:C R RAJAPPA:V PERUMAL NAINAR:T P K JAYARAJ:P S MANIAN [REFERRED TO]
ARUN KUMAR BOSE VS. MORD FURKAN ANSARI [REFERRED TO]
MITHILESH KUMAR PANDEY VS. BAIDYANATH YADAV [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA SINGH J P GOYAL BISHAMBHAR NATH PANDE VS. USHA RANI:RAJ NARAIN:RAJ NARAIN [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWATI PRASAD DIXIT GHOREWALA VS. RAJEEV GANDHI [REFERRED TO]
AZHAR HUSAIN VS. RAJIV GANDHI [REFERRED TO]
SAMAR SINGH VS. KEDAR NATH ALIAS K N SINGH [REFERRED TO]
U S SASIDHARAN VS. K KARUNAKARAN [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR JOSHI VS. NITIN BHAURAO PATIL [REFERRED TO]
DULA DEI VS. JADI BEWA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) xxx xxx xxx.

(2.) It may be noted that Section 86(1) is not attracted if there is non-compliance of Section 83 of the ROPA and so on the ground of non-compliance of Section 83, the petition under Section 86 of the ROPA cannot be dismissed. The Supreme Court: has in the case of Manohar Joshi v. Nitin Bhaurao Patel (1996) 1 SCC 169, held that Section 86 being in the nature of a penal provision, the same has to be construed strictly confirmed to its plain language. Section 86 empowers the High Court to dismiss an election petition at the threshold if it does not comply with the provision of Section 81 or Section 82 or Section 117 of the ROPA. The patent defects evident on a bare examination of the election petition as presented are to be considered. If the ground of non-compliance of Section 83 is considered to be the ground envisaged by Section 86 it would amount to misreading Section 86. It may however be noted that in the case of Lalit Kishore Chaturvedi v. Jagdish Prasad Thada 1990 Supp, SCC 248 = AIR 1990 S.C. 1731, it is made clear that even if. there is no mention about Section 83 in Section 86, Order 7 Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code can be applied to dismiss the petition not disclosing a cause, of action. For the present, therefore. I will confine to Section 86(1) and Section 81 of the ROPA. while dealing with the rival submissions on Order 7 Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code, requirements of Section 83 can be taken into account.

(3.) xxx xxx xxx.

Click here to view full judgment.

JITENDRA R. SUKHADIA Vs. KANCHANBHAI SHANABHAI RANA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address