TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rules Section 5 of Limitation Act doesn't apply to filing election petitions or recrimination notices under Representation of People Act.</h1> The court dismissed the appeal, ruling that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to the filing of election petitions or recrimination notices ... - ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (power to condone delay) applies to a recrimination notice given under Section 97 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 2. Whether the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 constitute a self-contained code excluding the application of Sections 4-24 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to proceedings under the Act (by virtue of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act). 3. Whether an election petition and a recrimination notice under Section 97 are to be treated as comparable for the purpose of applicability of limitation and procedural requirements (including requirements in Sections 83, 117, 118 and Section 86(1) consequences). 4. Treatment of earlier precedents concerning applicability of Limitation Act provisions to proceedings under the Representation of the People Act (distinguishing decisions concerning appeals under the Act from those concerning filing of election petitions and recrimination notices). ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Applicability of Section 5 Limitation Act to recrimination notice under Section 97 Legal framework: Section 5 Limitation Act permits condonation of delay in certain cases. Section 97 RPA permits a returned candidate or other party to give evidence to prove that the election of another candidate would have been void had a petition been presented challenging his election; proviso requires notice within fourteen days from commencement of trial and furnishing of securities under Sections 117 and 118; Section 97(2) requires the notice to be accompanied by statements and particulars required by Section 83 and to be signed and verified like an election petition. Precedent treatment: The Court relied on prior authority holding that filing of election petitions is governed by the RPA as a self-contained code and that Section 5 does not govern filing of election petitions (H.N. Yadav v. L.N. Misra was discussed and followed on this point). Decisions holding applicability of Limitation Act provisions to appeals under the RPA were distinguished. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the language of Section 97 and its proviso and Section 97(2). Section 97 equates a recrimination notice to an election petition by (a) allowing evidence only if notice is given within fourteen days from commencement of trial, (b) applying securities under Sections 117 and 118, and (c) requiring accompanying statements, particulars, signature and verification as required by Section 83. The purpose of the 14-day proviso is to ensure early filing so that petition and recrimination are tried together. Given the statutory scheme and the express incorporation of election-petition requirements into Section 97, the Court concluded that Section 5 cannot be invoked to condone delay in filing a recrimination notice. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to recrimination notices under Section 97 RPA because Section 97 makes such notices comparable to election petitions and the RPA is a self-contained code excluding Section 5 for this purpose. Obiter - ancillary observations distinguishing decisions on appeals under the RPA. Conclusions: Section 5 Limitation Act does not apply to a recrimination notice under Section 97; an application to condone delay under Section 5 in respect of such a notice must be rejected. Issue 2: Whether the Representation of the People Act is a self-contained code excluding Sections 4-24 Limitation Act by virtue of Section 29(2) Legal framework: Section 29(2) Limitation Act provides that where a special/local law prescribes a different limitation period, Section 3 applies and Sections 4-24 apply only insofar as they are not expressly excluded by such special/local law; earlier decisions interpreted 'expressly excluded' as not requiring literal mention but as inclusive of cases where the special law necessarily excludes application of Limitation Act provisions. Precedent treatment: H.N. Yadav was cited as establishing the test: whether the special Act is a complete code in itself such that provisions of the Limitation Act are necessarily excluded. V.C. Shukla (holding Section 12(2) of old Limitation Act applicable to an appeal under the RPA) was distinguished as concerning appeals, not filing of petitions. Interpretation and reasoning: On examining RPA provisions (Sections 83, 86, 97, 117, 118 and definition of 'commencement of trial'), the Court found that the RPA prescribes specific time-limits, procedural content, and consequences for non-compliance (e.g., dismissal under Section 86(1) for non-compliance with Section 117). The RPA thus forms a complete statutory code governing election petitions and associated recrimination notices; its scheme necessarily excludes the application of Section 5 for filing of election petitions or recrimination notices. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The RPA is a self-contained code in respect of filing of election petitions and recrimination notices; Sections 4-24 of the Limitation Act (including Section 5) do not apply where such exclusion follows from the RPA's scheme. Obiter - remarks on other High Court decisions reaching contrary conclusions. Conclusions: The provisions of the Limitation Act invoked (notably Section 5) are excluded from application to election petitions and recrimination notices under the RPA because the RPA constitutes a complete code for those proceedings. Issue 3: Comparison of recrimination notice with election petition and effect of RPA procedural provisions (Sections 83, 86, 97, 117, 118) Legal framework: Section 97 requires recrimination notices to comply with Section 83 contents, and proviso applies securities of Sections 117 & 118; Section 86(1) provides for dismissal of petitions not complying with certain provisions. Explanation to Section 86(4) defines 'commencement of trial' for purposes of Section 97 timeline. Precedent treatment: The Court treated prior authority establishing that the RPA's provisions create a self-contained procedural regime as binding on the present question. Interpretation and reasoning: Because Section 97 imports many requirements applicable to election petitions (contents, signature/verification, securities, specified short time-limit measured from commencement of trial), a recrimination notice is intended to be filed and tried contemporaneously with the election petition. The tight statutory timetable and mandatory consequences for non-compliance indicate legislative intent to preclude judicial extension of time under general limitation provisions. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Recrimination notices are comparable to election petitions in form, content and consequences; therefore the RPA's procedural requirements control and preclude resort to Section 5. Obiter - policy rationale that early filing promotes consolidation and efficient trial of related claims. Conclusions: A recrimination notice must meet the RPA's procedural and temporal requirements; failure to give notice within the fourteen-day period cannot be cured by Section 5 condonation. Issue 4: Treatment of precedent decisions on applicability of Limitation Act provisions to proceedings under the RPA Legal framework & precedent treatment: The Court considered earlier decisions (including one applying an old Limitation Act provision to an appeal under the RPA) and various High Court rulings that had applied Section 5 or similar provisions. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court distinguished decisions that applied Limitation Act provisions to appeals from those dealing with filing of petitions/recrimination notices. The decision in V.C. Shukla (applicability of Section 12(2) of the old Limitation Act to an appeal under Section 116A) was held inapposite because it concerned appeals, not the filing/trial of petitions; H.N. Yadav was followed to the extent it held the RPA to be a self-contained code excluding Section 5 for petition filing. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Precedents holding Limitation Act provisions applicable to appeals under the RPA are distinguishable and do not govern filing of election petitions or recrimination notices. Obiter - criticisms of High Court decisions that applied Section 5 to petition/recrimination filing in face of H.N. Yadav. Conclusions: Earlier decisions applying Limitation Act provisions to appeals under the RPA do not alter the conclusion that Section 5 is inapplicable to filing of election petitions and recrimination notices; conflicting High Court views are not followed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
