RAMESH KUMAR KHATRI vs DURGESH PATHAK

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Del) 788

HIGH COURT OF DELHI
MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA, J
RAMESH KUMAR KHATRI – Appellant
Versus
DURGESH PATHAK – Respondent

Advocates:
Mr. Gautam Narayan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Karan Sharma, Ms. Asmita Singh, Mr. Mohit Siwach, Mr. Rishikesh Kumar, and Ms. Sheenu Priya

Table of Content
1. allegations of fabricated expenses (Para 4)
2. court notes the basis (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
3. non-compliance does not equate (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
4. present application allowed (Para 27 , 28)

JUDGMENT :

I.A. 432/2023 (Application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC)

2. By way of the present petition, it is alleged that the respondent no. 1 has shown fabricated expenses in the day-to-day expenditure register. The respondent no. 1 has not lodged true accounts of expenditure incurred on refreshment, hoarding, banners, pamphlets, brooms, etc. in his election expenditure register.

4. On behalf of the applicant/respondent no. 1, it has been submitted as follows:

4.2 Mere non-compliance of Sections 77(1) and 77(2) of the 1951 Act, is not a corrupt practice, to attract Section 123 of the 1951 Act. In terms of Section 123(6) of the 1951 Act, corrupt practice only includes incurring or authorising of expenditure in contravention of Section 77 of the 1951 Act, which is beyond the prescribed limit.

4.4 Averments made in the petition are vague, without any supporting material and do not raise any triable issue.

5.1 T