IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SANDEEP V. MARNE
Udesh Shantaram Patekar – Appellant
Versus
Prakash Rajaram Surve – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the election petition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments presented by respondent no.1 regarding lack of cause of action. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 12) |
| 3. court analysis on rejection under order vii rule 11. (Para 16 , 20 , 29) |
| 4. legal requirements for corrupt practices. (Para 22 , 32 , 34) |
| 5. final ruling on the election petition. (Para 95 , 96) |
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
1) The Applicant, who is the returned candidate in elections to Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from 154 Magathane-Mumbai Assembly constituency, has filed the present Application seeking rejection of the Election Petition under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code) alleging non-compliance with provisions of Sections 81 and 83 of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951.
A. FACTS
2) The elections to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly were held on 20 November 2024. Petitioner and Respondents contested the election from 154-Magathane Assembly Constituency. The Petitioner was a candidate nominated from Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray fraction) political party, whereas Respondent No.1 was a candidate nominated by Shiv Sena political party (Ek




M. Karunanidhi Versus. Dr. H.V. Hande and others
U.S. Sasidharan Versus. K. Karunakaran and another
Senthilbalaji V. Versus. A.P. Geetha and others
Manubhai Nandlal Amorsey Versus. Popatlal Manilal Joshi and Others
Hardwari Lal Versus. Kanwal Singh
Sri Harasingh Charan Mohanty Versus. Sh. Surendra Mohanty
Laxmi Narayan Nayak Versus. Ramratan Chaturvedi and others
Charan Lal Sahu Versus. Giani Zail Singh and another
Daulat Ram Chauhan Versus. Anand Sharma
Anil Vasudev Salgaonkar Versus. Naresh Kushali Shigaonkar
Ajay Arjun Singh Versus. Sharadendu Tiwari and Others
Ponnala Lakshmaiah Versus. Kommuri Pratap Reddy and others
Madiraju Venkata Ramana Raju Versus. Peddireddigari Ramachandra Reddy and others
Dr. Vijay Laxmi Sadho Versus. Jagdish
Mahendra Pal Versus. Ram Dass Malanger & Ors.
Shivajirao B. Patil Kawekar Versus. Vilasrao D.Deshmukh
Samant N. Balkrishna and others Versus. George Fernandez and others
An election petition may be rejected if it fails to comply with mandatory pleading requirements regarding concise statements of material facts and particulars of corrupt practices as per the Represen....
Election petitions must contain concise statements of material facts; omission of a single material fact leads to dismissal for lack of cause of action.
An election petition must contain concise material facts and particulars as per the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951; failure to do so results in dismissal.
Failure to comply with statutory requirements regarding material facts and submission of integral documents renders an election petition dismissible at the threshold.
Allegations of corrupt practice in an election petition must be supported by specific material facts and full particulars as required by Section 83 of the RP Act of 1951. Failure to plead such materi....
Important Point :Election petitions must contain concise statements of material facts and particulars of corrupt practices; failure to comply results in dismissal.
Defective affidavit (not Form 25) in corrupt practice election petition is curable defect; opportunity to rectify required before dismissal under O7 R11 CPC. Pleadings alleging bribery with candidate....
Election petitions must plead concise material facts under Section 83(1)(a) RP Act to disclose cause of action; deficient, vague pleadings warrant dismissal under Order VII Rule 11 CPC without trial.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.