Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

B. Manickam Tagore vs V.Vijaya Prabhakaran on 21 April, 2025

Author: Surya Kant

Bench: Surya Kant

                                                                 1


                                             IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                        CIVIL APPEAL Nos.5370-5371 OF 2025
                                  (Arising out of SLP(C)Nos.10834-10835 of 2025)



     B. MANICKAM TAGORE                                                                           … APPELLANT



                                                             Versus




     V.VIJAYA PRABHAKARAN & ORS.                                                               … RESPONDENTS




                                                        O   R    D     E   R


     1.                  Leave granted.

     2.                  The    appellant,       a   Returned        Candidate     from   34    Virudhunagar

     Parliamentary                       Constituency,      in       the   State    of    Tamil     Nadu,   is

     aggrieved by the order dated 04.03.2025, passed by the High Court

     of Judicature at Madras, whereby his two applications; one under

     Order VII Rule 11 CPC, to reject the Election Petition No.4/2024,

     filed by respondent No.1, and another application under Order VI

     Rule 16 CPC to strike off some of the pleadings in the Election

     Petition, have been dismissed.

     3.                  We    have   heard      Dr.   Abhishek        Manu    Singhvi,    learned     Senior
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
     Counsel for the appellant as well as Dr. S Muralidhar, learned
SATISH KUMAR YADAV
Date: 2025.04.22
15:24:22 IST
Reason:



     Senior                    Counsel    for    respondent      No.1      and   carefully      perused     the

     material placed on record.
                                           2

4.    During the course of hearing, learned Senior Counsels have

taken us to the averments made in the Election Petition as well as

the contents of the two applications moved by the appellant herein.

In   addition,   a    pointed    reference       has     been   made   to   the   facts

disclosed by the appellant in Form-26.

5.    On going through the above-stated material, we are satisfied

that both the applications, moved by the appellant, require re-

consideration    by    the    High   Court.       It   seems    that   some   of    the

pleadings in the Election Petition are liable to be struck off.

However, whether the entire Election Petition can be rejected on

acceptance of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, is a

debatable issue, which shall be resolved by the High Court afresh

after hearing the parties.

6.    Dr.   Abhishek   Manu     Singhvi,       learned    Senior   Counsel    for   the

appellant submits that instead of pressing all the original grounds

in the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the appellant shall

submit an additional affidavit restricting the grounds which he now

propose to plead before the High Court. A similar opportunity shall

be granted to the Election Petitioner also.

7.    We request the High Court to decide both the applications

expeditiously without being influenced by the observations made in

the impugned order.

8.    It is also clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on

the merits of the case.

9.    The appeals stand disposed of in the above terms.
                                  3

10.   As a result, the pending interlocutory application also stands

disposed of.


                                        ......................……...J.
                                        (SURYA KANT)




                                        ..............……......……...J.
                                        (NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)

NEW DELHI;
APRIL 21, 2025.
                                   4

ITEM NO.46                COURT NO.3                  SECTION XII

               S U P R E M E C O U R T O F        I N D I A
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).10834-10835/2025

[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04-03-2025
in OA No.921/2024 and OA No.922/2024 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Madras]

B. MANICKAM TAGORE                                     Petitioner(s)
                                  VERSUS
V.VIJAYA PRABHAKARAN & ORS.                            Respondent(s)

(IA No. 97211/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT)

Date : 21-04-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH

For Petitioner(s)    Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv.
                     Mr. Muhammad Ali Khan, Adv.
                     Mr. Omar Hoda, Adv.
                     Ms. Eesha Bakshi, Adv.
                     Mr. Uday Bhatiya, Adv.
                     Mr. Kamran Khan, Adv.
                     Mr. Arjun Sharma, Adv.
                     Ms. Jayanti Singh, Adv.
                     Ms. Gurbani Bhatia, Adv.
                     Mr. Usman Ghani Khan, AOR

For Respondent(s)    Dr. S Muralidhar, Sr. Adv.
                     Mr. N C Ashok Kumar, Adv.
                     Mr. B. Karunakaran, AOR

          UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                             O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appeals stand disposed of in terms of the signed order.

As a result, the pending interlocutory application also stands disposed of.

(SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (PREETHI T.C.) ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (Signed order is placed on the file) 5