GAJANAN KRISHNAJI BAPAT AND ANOTHER versus DATTAJI RAGHOBAJI MEGHE AND OTHERS

GAJANAN KRISHNAJI BAPAT AND ANOTHER versus DATTAJI RAGHOBAJI MEGHE AND OTHERS

Petitioners failed to discharge onus of proof regarding alleged excessive or undisclosed expenditure; no evidence showed expenditure was incurred/authorized by respondent No. 1 or his agent; charges of corrupt practice not proved beyond reasonable doubt; High Court's findings on certain suppressed expenditures...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Gajanan Krishnaji Bapat; Respondent: Dattaji Raghobaji Meghe
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
18 July 1995
Procedural Posture
Election Appeal / Supreme Court Decision (appeal From High Court)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed, cross-objections partly allowed
Legal Topics
Right to Elect, Corrupt Practices, Expenditure Limits, Pleadings in Election Petition, Burden of Proof in Corrupt Practices, Amendment of Election Petition, Proof of Expenditure, Role of Political Parties in Election Expenditure
Election Law Right to Elect Corrupt Practices Expenditure Limits Pleadings in Election Petition Burden of Proof in Corrupt Practices Amendment of Election Petition Proof of Expenditure +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 7 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gajanan Krishnaji Bapat

Appellant

Dattaji Raghobaji Meghe

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Election Appeal / Supreme Court Decision (appeal From High Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Nature of right to elect or be elected—statutory or common law right
  2. 2 Degree of proof required for corrupt practice under Representation of People Act, 1951
  3. 3 Scope and grounds for interfering with election result

Ratio Decidendi

Petitioners failed to discharge onus of proof regarding alleged excessive or undisclosed expenditure; no evidence showed expenditure was incurred/authorized by respondent No. 1 or his agent; charges of corrupt practice not proved beyond reasonable doubt; High Court's findings on certain suppressed expenditures erroneous and conjectural.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed, cross-objections partly allowed

Orders

  • Election appeal dismissed with costs
  • Cross-objections of respondent No. 1 allowed to the extent indicated