Civil Petition No. 6081 of 2004 · Bombay High Court
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 14 Jan 2005
- Bench
- F I REBELLO
Provisions considered
Judgment
limited. The petitioners herein application before learned Judge trying election petition maintainability petition ground plaint disclose corrupt practise within meaning Section 15(6) Bombay Village Panchayats Act,
1958. learned Judge considering contention pleased observe The contention within meaning Section 9A C.P.C. consequently preliminary framed rejected application for framing of preliminary issue.
The real controversy is whether petition discloses material making a corrupt practise within meaning Section 15(6) Act. It open, therefore, successful candidate petition disclose ground constituted a corrupt practice. The learned Judge consider dispose according law. This jurisdiction Court touches maintainability petition itself. Considering above, justice be met impugned orders matters remanded Court reconsideration framing maintainability petition ground sought petitioners namely petition disclose ground corrupt practice consequently dismissed. The learned Judge parties considering the averments in the plaint dispose of the same according to law.
Rule made absolute in each of the present petitions accordingly. Both the petitions disposed of.
In view of the disposal of the main petitions Civil Applications in both the petitions dismissed as infructuous. . Parties/Authorities to act on an ordinary authenticated by the Personal Secretary/Associate of this Court. (F.I. REBELLO, J.) REBELLO, J.) (F.I.
(F.I. REBELLO, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 — s. 15(6); Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 9A.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 14 Jan 2005. The bench was F I 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.