IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.95 OF 2010 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.80 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1035 OF 2010 Sou. Madhubala Ramesh Bhore ... Applicant Versus Smt. Poonam Jagdish Pandey and others. ... Respondents Smt. Seema Sarnaik for applicant. Mr. S.S. Kulkarni for respondent No.1. Mr. J. Shekhar i/by M/s. J. Shekhar & Co. for respondent No.2. CORAM : ANIL R. DAVE, C. J. & S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 22ND MARCH, 2010 P.C. 1. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties at quite some length. We have also considered the judgments cited by the learned advocates and also maintainability of this appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 2. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the facts of the case, more particularly in view of the fact that Election Tribunal has not come to the conclusion that in the process of election, corrupt practice had been committed by any of the candidates and looking to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vadiveli v. Sundaram and others, (2000) 8 SCC 355, we are of the view that interim relief as prayed for requires to be granted in the Civil Application. 3. In the circumstances, civil application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b). The Tribunal shall proceed further with the proceedings as soon as possible uninfluenced by any of the observations made by the learned Single Judge or by this court. Civil application stands disposed of accordingly. CHIEF JUSTICE S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.