A. MADAN MOHAN versus KALAVAKUNTA CHANDRASEKHARA

A. MADAN MOHAN versus KALAVAKUNTA CHANDRASEKHARA

Failure to serve schedules and annexures with the election petition copy does not render the petition liable to be dismissed in limine under section 86, provided they are filed in court and accessible for inspection; schedules and documents do not constitute an integral part of the petition for the purposes of section 81(3).

Parties
Petitioner: A. Madan Mohan; Respondent: Kalavakunta Chandrasekhara
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
14 February 1984
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition (civil) / Interlocutory Order From Andhra Pradesh High Court, Application No. 53 of 1983
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Procedure for Service of Election Petition, Requirements Under Representation of the People Act, Dismissal of Election Petitions in Limine
Election Law Procedure for Service of Election Petition Requirements Under Representation of the People Act Dismissal of Election Petitions in Limine

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A. Madan Mohan

Petitioner

Kalavakunta Chandrasekhara

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition (civil) / Interlocutory Order From Andhra Pradesh High Court, Application No. 53 of 1983

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to serve schedules and annexures to the election petition renders the petition liable to be rejected in limine under section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951

Ratio Decidendi

Failure to serve schedules and annexures with the election petition copy does not render the petition liable to be dismissed in limine under section 86, provided they are filed in court and accessible for inspection; schedules and documents do not constitute an integral part of the petition for the purposes of section 81(3).

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • No interference with High Court order; special leave petition dismissed.