Judgment · High Court · 2005
Case at a glance
Outcome
Set aside
order is set aside the election programme
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Considering that the impugned order is set aside the election programme not to be proceeded with. (F.I. REBELLO, J.) REBELLO, J.) (F.I. (F.I. REBELLO, J.)
Judgment
passed necessary various controversy findings recorded Court. The learned Judge impugned paragraph 15 relied various documents produced instance petitioner herein. grievance election petitioner. The The respondent NO.1 herein documents produced evidence closed inspite objections raised Respondent No.1 Respondent No.1 challenge authenticity documents. It submitted opportunity should authenticity petitioner challenge documents. failure comply requirement this ground alone the impugned order is liable to be set aside. As
In the impugned order the learned Judge pleased record a finding sometime petitioner herein Bandu Govind Shinde sometime Shinde Bandu Eknath. The whether documents paragraph 15 relied without giving opportunity respondent No.1 contesting respondents. In opinion documentary evidence unless admitted Respondents proved course evidence. That done. That documents produced opportunity contesting respondents. That having not been given the impugned order on that count is liable to be set aside.
In the light of that Rule made absolute prayer clause (b). The matter remanded learned Judge. The petitioner, advised, documents listed paragraph 15 produce course examination. The Court having allowed petitioner documents permit evidence. The contesting respondents allowed examine petitioner evidence desire aspect matter. The Court thereafter to pass appropriate orders according to law.
Operative part
Considering that the impugned order is set aside the election programme not to be proceeded with. (F.I. REBELLO, J.) REBELLO, J.) (F.I.
(F.I. REBELLO, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: order is set aside the election programme
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 14 Jan 2005. The bench was F I REBELLO, REBELLO.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.