Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.27 seconds)
Documents citing Smt.Mumbi Bai vs Principal Secretary The State Of Madhya ... on 7 March, 2012

Smt Pushpa Bai Patidar vs Smt Sangeeta Bail Rathore on 22 July, 2024

02. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHILPA NAGDEVE Signing time: 24-07-2024 14:56:03 2 WP-30496-2023 election petition preferred by respondent No.1 was barred by time but no issue in that regard was framed by respondent No.3. The Election Petition is governed by the provisions of CPC thus respondent No.3 ought to have framed issues and decided each issue after recording of evidence. The petitioner has not even been permitted to adduce evidence. It is also submitted that no finding has been given whether petitioner was belonging to OBC category in her original State i.e. Rajasthan and has married a person of same caste Patidar which has been notified as OBC for the State of Madhya Pradesh and thus also belongs to OBC category. The election petition has been decided in a very cursory manner hence the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Kalka Prasad Vs. Ramji Lal and Others 2002 (3) MPLJ 121, Pramila Bai Vs. Sub Divisional Officer, Bareli and Others 1999 (2) MPLJ 209, Mumbi Bai Vs. State of M.P. and Others 2012 (2) MPLJ 456 and upon order dated 13.09.2023 passed in W.P. No.13777/2023 (Ramesh Bhabor Vs. State of M.P. and Others).
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - P Verma - Full Document

Dilip Singh Tomar vs Chander Singh on 24 August, 2024

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after completion of final counting petitioner was declared successful but at the time of final result the said position was changed. The dispute in the matter is as regards recounting of votes and it had to be considered as to whether any application Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEERAJ SARVATE Signing time: 28-08-2024 17:08:27 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:24507 2 WP-8933-2024 was submitted by the petitioner before the Returning Officer for recounting of votes. The total number of votes polled in the matter in favour of the petitioner were also required to be considered. The Election Petition is governed by the provisions of CPC thus issues ought to have been framed and decided after recording of evidence. No finding whatsoever have been recorded in respect of the factual aspects which arose in the matter for determination. The Election Petition has been decided in a very cursory manner hence the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Kalka Prasad Vs. Ramji Lal and Others 2002 (3) MPLJ 121, Pramila Bai Vs. Sub Divisional Officer, Bareli and Others 1999 (2) MPLJ 209, Mumbi Bai Vs. State of M.P. and Others 2012 (2) MPLJ 456 and order dated 13.09.2023 passed in W.P. No.13777/2023 (Ramesh Bhabor Vs. State of M.P. and Others ).
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - P Verma - Full Document

Praveen Kumar Singore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 19 September, 2013

There   is   no   provision   for   condonation   of   delay   in   case   an  election petition is filed beyond the period of limitation.   Since the  statute has not conferred any power on the specified officer trying the  election petition to condone the delay, it is beyond his authority to  entertain an  election  petition  which  is  filed   after   the   expiry   of  the  period   of   limitation.     (For   an   authority   as   to   proposition   that   the  specified authority does not have the power to condone delay in an  election petition tried under Section 122 of 1993 Adhiniyam, please  see Kishan Singh v. Harveer Singh, 1998 (1) MPWN 83, Kalka Prasad v.  Ramji Lal and others : 2002 (3) MPLJ 121 and Smt. Mumbi Bai v. State  of M.P. and others : 2012 (2) MPHT 305).
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1