MD. ALAUDDIN KHAN versus KARAM THAMARJIT SINGH

MD. ALAUDDIN KHAN versus KARAM THAMARJIT SINGH

There is a difference of opinion between the judges: Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J held that in absence of a prayer to declare the election petitioner or other candidate as elected, Section 97 bars counter claims/recrimination; Order VIII Rule 6A cannot be invoked. V.S. Sirpurkar, J held that the pleas raised are not recrimination but valid defence, allowing recount for all candidates and all stations under amended Order VIII Rule 6A, and that limitation of Section 97 does not bar such defence. The matter is referred to a larger bench.

Parties
Appellant: MD. Alauddin Khan; Respondent: Karam Thamarjit Singh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
22 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Referred to Larger Bench Due to Difference of Opinion
Outcome
Difference of opinion; matter referred to larger bench
Legal Topics
Recount of Votes, Recrimination, Counter Claim in Election Petition, Interpretation of Representation of the People Act, 1951, Code of Civil Procedure Application to Election Petitions
Election Law Recount of Votes Recrimination Counter Claim in Election Petition Interpretation of Representation of the People Act, 1951 Code of Civil Procedure Application to Election Petitions

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MD. Alauddin Khan

Appellant

Karam Thamarjit Singh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Referred to Larger Bench Due to Difference of Opinion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether counter claim or recrimination can be raised by the returned candidate under Order VIII Rule 6A CPC when Section 97 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is not attracted
  2. 2 Scope of recount and whether it should cover all polling stations or just the named stations

Ratio Decidendi

There is a difference of opinion between the judges: Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J held that in absence of a prayer to declare the election petitioner or other candidate as elected, Section 97 bars counter claims/recrimination; Order VIII Rule 6A cannot be invoked. V.S. Sirpurkar, J held that the pleas raised are not recrimination but valid defence, allowing recount for all candidates and all stations under amended Order VIII Rule 6A, and that limitation of Section 97 does not bar such defence. The matter is referred to a larger bench.

Court Disposition

Difference of opinion; matter referred to larger bench

Orders

  • Matter to be placed before Hon'ble Chief Justice for constituting appropriate bench