Allowed¶3

Prashant Sudam Jagtap v. Chetan Vitthal Tupe

Bombay HC31 Jul 2025AEP/15/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Restoration of election petition; interim application allowed with Respondent's limitation objection kept open; order dated 11/06/2025 set aside; EP (L) 539/2025; IA No. 15 of 2025; Prashant Sudam Jagtap v. Chetan Vitthal Tupe; Bombay High Court, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction; Arif S. Doctor, J.; office objections; next date 18th August 2025.

What did the court decide?

Interim Application allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b): Election Petition (L) 539 of 2025 restored and the High Court's order dated 11/06/2025 set aside, with the Respondent's contention that the Interim Application is barred by limitation kept open; time to remove office objections extended by one week; matter stood over to 18th August 2025 for directions. ¶3

Prashant Sudam Jagtap vs Chetan Vitthal Tupe — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶3

Issue for consideration

Whether the Interim Application seeking restoration of Election Petition (L) 539 of 2025 and setting aside of the High Court's order dated 11/06/2025 should be allowed, with the Respondent's contention that the application is barred by limitation kept open.

¶18

Court's answer

Keeping open the Respondent's contentions qua limitation, the Interim Application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b), i.e., Election Petition (L) 539 of 2025 is restored and the order dated 11/06/2025 is set aside.

¶3

Ratio / Principle

Time to remove office objections is extended by a period of one week from the date of the order.

¶4

Key takeaways

The matter is to stand over to 18th August 2025 for directions.ratio¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Arif S. Doctor, J.), Interim Application No. 15 of 2025 in Election Petition (L) No. 539 of 2025 — Prashant Sudam Jagtap v. Chetan Vitthal Tupe. The Applicant sought restoration of Election Petition (L) 539 of 2025 and setting aside of the High Court's order dated 11/06/2025. Counsel for the Respondent raised no objection to the Interim Application being allowed but contended that it was barred by limitation owing to belated filing, and sought that this contention be kept open. Keeping the Respondent's contentions qua limitation open, the Court allowed the Interim Application in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b), thereby restoring the Election Petition and setting aside the order dated 11/06/2025; time to remove office objections was extended by one week and the matter was stood over to 18th August 2025 for directions.

¶1

Digitally signed by MEERA MEERA MAHESH MAHESH JADHAV JADHAV Date:2025.08.05 10:42:20 +0530

¶2

1-aep-15-25.doc

¶3

1 / 2

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 15 OF 2025

¶5

IN ELECTION PETITION (L) NO. 539 OF 2025

¶6

Prashant Sudam Jagtap

¶7

...Applicant/Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

Chetan Vitthal Tupe ...Respondent

¶10

¶11

Mr. Asim Sarode a/w Ms Shriya Awale for Applicant/Petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Abhijit Kulkarni a/w Mr. Abhishek Roy for Respondent.

¶13

¶14

CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J. DATED : 4th AUGUST 2025

¶15

P.C. :

¶16

1 The captioned Interim application has been filed seeking the following

¶17

reliefs:

¶18

“a. That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to restore the Election Petition (L) 539 of 2025.

¶19

b. That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the Order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 11/06/2025 in regards to EP (L) 539/2025 in the interest of justice.

¶20

c. That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass any such Order it deems fit and in interest of justice.”

¶21

2 The matter was stood over to today, to enable Learned Counsel for the Respondent to take instructions as to whether the Respondent would be seriously opposing the aforesaid prayers. Mr. Kulkarni, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent today, submitted that the Respondent did not have any

Meera Jadhav

1-aep-15-25.doc

2 / 2

objection per se to the Interim Application being allowed, but submitted that the Election Petition was itself barred by limitation, given the belated filing of the captioned Interim Application. He submitted that the Interim Application could be allowed by specifically keeping their contention open.

¶26

3 Thus, keeping open the Respondent’s contentions qua limitation, the Interim Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b).

¶27

4 Time to remove office objections is extended by a period of one week from today.

¶28

5 Stand over to 18th August 2025 for directions.

¶29

(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.)

¶30

Meera Jadhav

Prashant Sudam Jagtap v. Chetan Vitthal Tupe

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Sudam Jagtap v. Chetan Vitthal Tupe

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Saurabh Arora vs the Controller of Patents and Designs

Aditya Birla Finance Limited vs Sundara Helena Esther

Kartik Natvarlal Panchal vs Shardaben Nagindas Panchal

N Annamalai vs Daewoo International Corporation and 2 Ors.

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. vs Maandeo Motors India Private Limited

Larsen and Toubro Limited vs Sharepro Services India Pvt. Ltd.