r.t.arasu v. a.Munusamy
Case brief
What is this about?
An election challenge sought recounting on allegations of improper postal-ballot and nineteenth-round counting. The court allowed the returned candidate's application and struck out paragraphs 20–31 of the election petition as vague and lacking material facts sufficient for trial.
What did the court decide?
Paragraphs 20–31 of Election Petition No.20 of 2016 struck off.
What the court decided
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION) TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH O.A.No.29 of 2017 in Election Petition No.20 of 2016
ELP No.20 of 2016
A.Munusamy, S/o.R.Arumugam, No.3/365, Padavattamman Koil Street, Kazhipattur Village, Padur Post, Thiruporur Taluk, Kanchipuram District Pin 603 103. ... Petitioner -VS1.R.T.Arasu, S/o.Thandiyan, No.1/22, Mariyamman Koil Street, Irumbedu Village, Maduranthagam Taluk, Kanchipuram District 603 301.
- 2.P.Sampath,
No.51, Thenneripattu Village, Vellore Post, Cheyyur Taluk, Kanchipuram District 603 401.
- 3.T.Ramesh,
No.14, Manju Villagam, Paraman Keni, Sekkanankuppam Post, Cheyyur Taluk, Kanchipuram District 603 305. 4.Ehil Karoline, No.64, Padmavathi Nagar Main Road, Madampakkam, Chennai 600 126.
- 5.I.Kannan,
No.5/645, Kalaimagal Street, New Otteri Extention, Vandalur, Chennai 600 048.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Could the returned candidate seek striking out of election-petition pleadings under Order VI Rule 16 CPC?
Did the allegations concerning postal ballots and nineteenth-round counting contain sufficient material facts to sustain a claim for recount?
Parties & counsel
- applicant
R.T.Arasu
- respondent
A.Munusamy
- respondent
P.Sampath
- respondent
T.Ramesh
- respondent
Ehil Karoline
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court