SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(Mad) 556

A.RAMAMURTHI
K. C. Palanisamy – Appellant
Versus
M. Chinnasamy – Respondent


Advocates Appeared
Mr. G. Subramanian, Senior Counsel for Petitioner. Mr. T.V. Ramanujam, Senior Counsel for Respondents.

Judgment :

1. These applications are filed by the petitioner to permit Thiru S.Iyer the then District Collector, Karur and the Returning Officer for the election to No. 26, Karur Parliamentary Constituency held on 5.9.1999 to be examined as a court witness, to permit screening of the video taken by the videographers appointed and mark then in the case and to permit the petitioner to cross examine Thiru S.Iyer on all points relating to the election.

2. The case in brief for disposal of all the applications-is as follows:-The petitioner filed the main election petition seeking an order for scrutiny and recounting of the ballot papers in respect of Karur Parliamentary Constituency election held in September 1999. He had also sought for declaration that the election of the 1st respondent is void and illegal and for a further direction that-he was the duly elected successful candidate.

The election of the 1st respondent has been challenged on the ground of corrupt practice and serious irregularities in counting followed by an arbitrary order of the 17th respondent, who happened to be the Returning Officer of the Constituency in rejecting the petitioner's complaint dated 6.10.1999. He ha




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top