KARIM UDDIN BARBHUIYA versus AMINUL HAQUE LASKAR & ORS.

KARIM UDDIN BARBHUIYA versus AMINUL HAQUE LASKAR & ORS.

The Supreme Court held that the Election Petition failed to plead the concise material facts required by Section 83(1)(a) and failed to set out full particulars of alleged corrupt practice as required by Section 83(1)(b), and did not state particulars showing how improper acceptance of nomination materially affected the election as required under Section 100(1)(d)(i); accordingly the petition disclosed no complete cause of action and was liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Sections 83 and 87 RP Act, and the Election Petition No. 1 of 2021 was dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Karim Uddin Barbhuiya; Respondent: Aminul Haque Laskar & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
08 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (civil Appeal No. 6282 of 2023) / Final Judgment on Appeal (supreme Court Judgment Dated 08.04.2024)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Election Petition No. 1 of 2021 dismissed.
Legal Topics
Corrupt Practice, Undue Influence, Improper Acceptance of Nomination, Rejection of Election Petition Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, Pleading Requirements Under S.83 RP Act
Representation of the People Act, 1951 Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Election Law Corrupt Practice Undue Influence Improper Acceptance of Nomination Rejection of Election Petition Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Karim Uddin Barbhuiya

Appellant

Aminul Haque Laskar & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (civil Appeal No. 6282 of 2023) / Final Judgment on Appeal (supreme Court Judgment Dated 08.04.2024)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an election petition alleging corrupt practice in the nature of undue influence and improper acceptance of nomination must be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC where material facts required under Section 83 RP Act are not pleaded and where grounds under Section 100 RP Act are not made out
  2. 2 What particulars are required to be pleaded when alleging corrupt practice of undue influence under Section 123(2) and improper acceptance of nomination under Section 100(1)(d)(i) RP Act

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the Election Petition failed to plead the concise material facts required by Section 83(1)(a) and failed to set out full particulars of alleged corrupt practice as required by Section 83(1)(b), and did not state particulars showing how improper acceptance of nomination materially affected the election as required under Section 100(1)(d)(i); accordingly the petition disclosed no complete cause of action and was liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Sections 83 and 87 RP Act, and the Election Petition No. 1 of 2021 was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Election Petition No. 1 of 2021 dismissed.

Orders

  • Election Petition No. 1 of 2021 dismissed.
  • Civil Appeal No. 6282 of 2023 allowed.