REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

A. LAZAR Appellant

V/S

M.K. AZHAGIRI AND OTHERS Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

K KAMARAJA NADAR MARIAPPAN M R MASANI VS. KUNJU THEIVAR:V R NEDUNCHEZHIYAN:THE ELEPTION TRIBUNAL RANCHI [REFERRED TO]
INAMATI MALLAPPA BASAPPA VS. DESAI BASAVARAJ AYYAPPA [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN RAJ VS. SURENDRA KUMAR TAPARIA [REFERRED TO]
SHEO SADAN SINGH VS. MOHAN LAL GAUTAM [REFERRED TO]
UDHAV SINGH VS. MADHAV RAO SCINDIA [REFERRED TO]
C M ARUMUGAM VS. S RAJGOPAL [REFERRED TO]
SHIV CHAND VS. UJAGAR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
JYOTI BASU VS. DEBI GHOSAL [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]
MOHAN KUMAR SINGHANIA MAHESH D PATHAK NITIN D WAKANKAR NAVNEET GOEL S VENKATESWAR DINESH KUMAR SINGH ROHIT CHOUDHARY ANIL KANT R MANJUNATHASWAMY ARUN KUMAR RAY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR JOSHI VS. BHAURAO RAGOJI PATIL [REFERRED TO]
KASHINATH SAJAN PATIL VS. DESHMUKH HEMANT BHASKAR [REFERRED TO]
GORE LAL SHAKYA VS. MAHARAJ SINGH YADAV [REFERRED TO]
MULAUAM SINGH YADAV VS. DHARAMPAL YADAV [REFERRED TO]
RAM PRASAD SHARMA VS. MANI KUMAR SUBBA [REFERRED TO]
JANKI VASHDEO BHOJWANI VS. INDUSIND BANK LTD [REFERRED TO]
SATRUCHARLA VIJAYA RAMA RAJU VS. NIMMAKA JAYA RAJU [REFERRED TO]
UMESH CHALLIYIL VS. K P RAJENDRAN [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Application has been filed, praying to substitute the applicant A. Lazar as Petitioner in place of the deceased Petitioner late P. Mohan and continue the proceedings in the above Election Petition.

(2.) THE case of the applicant is as follows:

(3.) NINTH Respondent also has filed a counter affidavit, stating as under: 5.1. As per Section 112(1) of the Act, the Election Petition got abated. The mandatory requirements under Section 82 of the Act are not complied with and hence the main Election Petition itself is liable to be dismissed. Once the applicant withdrew his nomination, he relinquishes all his rights and therefore, the Application under Section 112 (3) is no maintainable. The applicant has failed to comply with the requirement of enclosing certified copy of the certificate issued by the Election Officer. The applicant cannot maintain a petition on the basis of security deposit made by the deceased P. Mohan. The matters are within the exclusive knowledge of the deceased Petitioner and cannot be established by the applicant. Therefore, the Application has to be dismissed.

Click here to view full judgment.

A LAZAR Vs. M K AZHAGIRI

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address