Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
ST Members Can Invoke Section 13B HMA If Hinduised By Customs: Chhattisgarh High Court
06 Mar 2026
Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
ANAND PATHAK
Rabindra Kumar Upadhyay – Appellant
Versus
Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Lahar – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER
With consent heard finally.
1. The present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner taking exception to the order dated 17.05.2023 passed by the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Lahar, District Bhind, whereby an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC filed by the petitioner as respondent/returned candidate in election petition, which is being preferred by the respondent No.2 has been rejected.
2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent No.2 participated in the election for the post of Sarpanch in Gram Panchayat Sikri Jagir, Tahsil Lahar, District Bhind. In the said election, respondent No.2 obtained 407 votes whereas petitioner obtained 425 votes. Consequently petitioner declared as elected/returned candidate by Annexure P/2. Thereafter, election petition under Section 122 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred as 'Act of 1993') was filed at the instance of respondent
Strict compliance with the affidavit requirement in election petitions is essential as per the relevant rules and regulations.
An appeal under election law cannot be converted into a valid election petition unless it complies with mandatory requirements of security deposit and verification.
An election can only be declared void based on substantial evidence and specific grounds enumerated in the governing election rules.
Election Petition – Requirement to file affidavit under proviso to Section 83(1)(c) of Representation of People Act, 1951 is not mandatory – It is sufficient if there is substantial compliance.
Affidavits in election petitions must meet specific legal standards; non-compliance leads to dismissal.
The requirement for personal presentation of an election petition under applicable rules can be satisfied through e-filing and virtual presence due to extraordinary circumstances, ensuring compliance....
The mandatory requirement of security deposit for election petitions must be complied with at the time of filing, and failure to do so results in dismissal, as affirmed by precedent.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article