abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (CUSTOMS) Appearance: MR. HARDIK V VORA(7123) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR NIKUNT K RAVAL(5558) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 and HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT Date : 02/12/2022 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI) 1. This petition is preferred seeking to question the action of the respondent authority in nonissuance of the refund of Integrated Goods and Services Tax ('the IGST' hereinafter) along with the interest. 2. The petitioner is a Limited Liability Partnership Firm having LLP No.AAM1202 and is engaged in trading of Ceramics and Page 1 of 22 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 01:29:13 IST 2022 C/SCA/14649/2022 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2022 Tiles. Assessee was formerly known as Azuvi International LLP and has changed its name to Aartos International LLP from 08.04.2019. The name updation was intimated to the Bank and all the relevant government departments including GST, Income Tax, ROC and Customs. 3. The petitioner exported the goods in the month of February and March 2020 and shipping bills along with GSTR3B and GSTR 1 for substantiation of this averment are forming the part of the record. It is averred by the petitioner that out of three export invoices, the refund has been received of IGST paid at the time of export of Rs.20.45 Lakh (rounded of). On three invoices being invoice Nos.E54/201920, Page 2 of 22 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 01:29:13 IST 2022 C/SCA/14649/2022 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2022 E67/201920 and E68/201920 dated 08.03.2020 and the duty drawback of all the three invoices also had been received on 27.02.2020 and 04.04.2020. 3.1 The petitioner since did not receive the refund of the IGST paid on export invoice No.E54/201920 dated 06.02.2020 of Rs.19,94,994/, it had attempted to approach the department. As there is a portal of Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievance ('the CPGRAMS' hereinafter) on 14.02.2022, however for two months, there was no response. The matter was disposed on 13.05.2022. "*** 4. In view of the direction received from PFMS, Customs Mundra has forwarded various emails requesting ICEGATE (System) to push the said shipping bills in Scroll PC menu so that same can be processed as per ICES advisory Page 3 of 22 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 01:29:13 IST 2022 C/SCA/14649/2022 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2022 18/2020(IGST Refunds). Further, Customs Mundra is in touch with the NIC team and requesting them to look into the matter and resolve the matter at the earliest. 5. In addition to this, the exporter is also advised to contact ICEGATE at the Helpdesk No.180030101000 or [email protected] requesting ICEGATE (System) to push the said shipping bills in Scroll PC menu. In view of above, the grievance stands disposed of." The communication received thereafter from the CPGRAMS. 4. It is the say of the petitioner that the provision of Sections 16 and 54 of the IGST Act and Rule 96 of the CGST Rules if are consi
M/s.Kiara Microcredit Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records of the sole arbitrator in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in Arbitration Case No.9 of 2020 dated 23.09.2021, set aside the same. For Petitioner :Mr.K.Subramanian, Senior Advocate, for Mr.K.Hariharan For Respondent :Mr.S.Vijaya Kumar, for Mr.G.Vairava Subramanian ORDER This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order, dated 23.09.2021 in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in Arbitration Case No.9 of 2020. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2 2.The parties are referred to as per the rank mentioned before the Court below. 3.A memo has been filed on behalf of the Claimant before the Sole Arbitrator in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in Arbitration Case No.9 of 2020, to close the crossexamination of C.W.1 and continue the Arbitral proceedings further. The said memo was rejected on 23.09.2021. Against the said rejection order, the applicant is before this Court. 4.Heard on either side. Perused the material documents available on records. 5.This Civil Revision Petition is filed on the ground that there is no adequate efficacious alternative remedy available in law to canvass the correctness of the impugned order passed by the sole arbitrator in Arbitration Case No.9 of 2020, dated 23.09.2021 except to approach this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India. As per rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, this Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3 6.The Applicant/Claimant/Petitioner has filed this Civil Revision Petition to set aside the order, dated 23.09.2021 in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in Arbitration Case No.9 of 2020, passed by the sole Arbitrator. 7.As per agreement between the parties, dated 15.03.2018, in O.P.No. 331 of 2020, a sole arbitrator was appointed by this Court on 02.09.2020. Both the parties are agreed to lead oral evidences. 8.C.W.1 was examined in chief and cross in part. At this stage, the revision petitioner has filed a memo on 05.09.2021 to close the cross examination of C.W.1. 9.The petitioner has stated in the memo that the learned Arbitrator has a duty to protect the witness from being harassed or bullied during cross examination. The learned Arbitrator may ensure that the witness is treated fairly and courteously, in as much as a perusal of line of cross examination would disclose that the learned counsel for the respondent is exceeding the bounds of fairness. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4 10.The petitioner h
M/s.HiTech Enterprises, No.100/392 (NP), SIDCO Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai – 600 098. ...Respondent Original Petition filed under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying to set aside the Award dated 23.11.2021 passed by the Facilitation Council, Chennai Region, Tamil Nadu between the petitioner and the respondent and to direct the respondent to pay the cost. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Kumaraguru For Respondent : Mr.Praveen Alexander 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div.) No.4 of 2023 ORDER The present petition has been filed under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to set aside the Award dated 23.11.2021 passed by the Facilitation Council, Chennai Region, Tamil Nadu. 2. The learned counsel on either side submitted in unison that the parties have entered into a Memorandum of Settlement Agreement dated 06.06.2023 and on the basis of which, the dispute between them has been amicably settled before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre attached to this Court. Both the learned counsels have filed the said Memorandum of Settlement Agreement, before this Court and jointly prayed this Court to dispose this petition in terms of that Memorandum of Settlement Agreement. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the time of admission of this petition, the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.5,68,057/ by way of Demand Draft No.523517 dated 14.12.2022 drawn on City Union Bank Ltd., Padappai Branch, Chennai in favour of “The Registrar General, High Court, Madras” and the Registry of this Court has credited the said amount in O.P.D.(Com.Div.)No.96703 of 2022. Therefore, 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div.) No.4 of 2023 the learned counsel prayed this Court to issue appropriate direction to the Registry to refund the said amount along with the accrued interest thereof, to the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that he has no objection to the aforesaid amount being refunded to the petitioner. 5. The Memorandum of Settlement Agreement dated 06.06.2023 entered into between the parties herein reads as follows: “SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT entered into at Chennai on this the 6th day of June, 2023. BETWEEN M/s.Kalyani Stampings (Pvt) Ltd., Represented by its VicePresident,
Delhi High Court Agp City Gas Private Limited & Anr. vs Petroleum And Natural Gas Regulatory ... on 15 March, 2023 Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/001830 * % Judgment reserved on: 17 January 2023 Judgment pronounced on: 15 March 2023 + W.P.(C) 11645/2022 & CM APPL. 34525/2022 (Interim Stay) AGP CITY GAS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Paras Kuhad, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Piyush Joshi, Ms. Sumiti Yadava, Ms. Vatsla Bhatia, Mr. Yagya Sharma, Mr. Manu Agarwal, Mr. Jitin Chaturvedi, and Mr. Shuaib Hussain, Advs. versus PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS REGULATORY BOARD & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Rahul Sagar Sahay, Mr. Mohit Budhiraja, Ms. Taniya Dhoulakhandi, Advs. for R1. Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr. Apoorv Kurup, CGSC with Mr. Ojaswa Pathak and Mr. Amit Gupta, Advs. for UOI/R 2. Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Govind Manoharan and Mr. Nakul Rajan, Advs. for R3. Mr. N.L. Ganapathi and Mr. Siddhant Garg, Advs. for R4. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA W.P.(C) 11645/2022 Page 1 of 178 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:15.03.2023 16:03:01 Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/001830 JUDGMENT A. PRELUDE Paras 1 3 B. ESSENTIAL FACTS Paras 4 24 C. THE AGP SUBMISSIONS Paras 25 60 D. PNGRB SUBMISSIONS Paras 61 69 E. CONTENTIONS OF EICL Paras 70 84 F. ARGUMENTS OF GAIL Paras 85 G. AGP IN REJOINDER Paras 86 96 H. PNGRB AND EXCLUSIVITY Paras 97 107 HISTORICAL BACKDROP I. CGD NETWORK AND CASCADES Paras 108 117 J. RECONCILING S. 2(i) WITH REG. Paras 118 122 2(1)(i) K. THE PROVISO AND READINESS Para 123 134 TO SUPPLY L. THE ARGUMENT OF Para 135 140 PROGRESSIVE EXCLUSIVITY M. PROVISO AND MWP Para 141 157 MILESTONES N. BALANCING OF INTERESTS Para 158 159 O. THE ARTICLE 19(1)(g) Para 160 165 ARGUMENT P. IMPACT OF PREVIOUS FORAYS Para 166 175 Q. SHIFTING STAND OF THE Para 176 180
1170CESTATAHM.  M/s U.P. State Spining Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T. Allahabad 2019TIOL1627CESTATALL.  M/s Sri Durga Mills Vs. CCE, Kanpur 2013 (293) ELT 744 (Tri. Del.)  Ritika Pharmatech Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi 2019 (370) ELT 626 (Tri.Del.) 3 E/51149/2014  Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commr. Of Customs, Jamnagar 2019 (365) ELT 920 (Tri.Ahmd.)  JSW Steel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex & S.T., Goa 2016 (343) ELT 717 (Tri. Mumbai). 3. Learned Authorized Representative reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides and perused the material on record of the case. In the instant issue, nothing has been brought on record to indicate any mens rea on the part of the appellants as the applicable duty as well as interest have been paid before issuance of the show cause notice. It has been held in a number of cases under identical circumstances, that penalty cannot be imposed under Section 11AC of the act. Considering also that the appellant is a PSU, intent to evade payment of duty, cannot be alleged and therefore penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be imposed. 5. We find that this Tribunal in the appellant's own case 2022 TIOL539CESTATAHM held as under: "26. As far as imposition of penalty is concerned, we find that it is a settled legal position that in cases where sue involved is the classification dispute and interpretation of rules/law/exemption notification are involved, no penalty can be imposed. In the present mater no penalty is imposable upon the appellant under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules 1944 as the applicant has not violated any Rules/provisions with intention to
1. M/s Golden Jubilee Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by its Resolution Professional Mr. Subodh Kumar Agarwal IBBI/IPA001/IPP00087/2001718/10183 Having its registered office at: Survey No. 64, Beside Shiparamam, Madhapur, Hyderabad, Telangana 500081. ...Respondent No. 1 Email: [email protected] 2. Committee of Creditors M/s Golden Jubilee Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Survey No. 64, Beside Shiparamam, Madhapur, Hyderabad, Telangana 500081. Email: Not Available ...Respondent No. 2 3. Telangana State Tourism Corporation Limited Government of Telangana DBlock, 2nd floor, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana 500081 Email : [email protected] ...Respondent No. 3 4. Shilparamam Arts, Crafts & Cultural Society Hi Tech City Main Road, Hitec City, Madhapur, Hyderabad, Telangana 500081. 2 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 426, 430, 432 &710 of 2020 Email: [email protected] ...Respondent No. 4 5. BREP Asia II Indian Holding Co. II (NQ) Pte. Ltd. 77, Robinson Road #1300 Robinson 77, Singapore 068896 Email: [email protected] ...Respondent No. 5 Present For Appellants: Ms. Priya Kumar & Mr. Shivam Goel, Advocates For Respondents: Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Gyanendra Kumar, Mr. Aviral Singhal, Mr. D. Kapila, Adv. for SRA. Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Vivek, Advocate for R2. PCS, Manoj Kumar Koyalkar, Adv. for R3. Mr. Swapnil Gupta, Mr. Abhinav Mishra, Mr. Vaibhav Mendirata, Advocates for R4. With Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 430 of 2020 (Arising out of the Order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, in I.A. No. 960 of 2019 in I.A. No. 32 of 2019 in C.P. (IB) No. 248/7/HDB/2017.) IN THE MATTER OF: Consolidated Engineering Company Through its Partner, Office at KBlock, Chaudhary Building, Connaught Circus, New Delhi 110001. ...Appellant Versus 3 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 426, 430, 432 &710 of 2020 1. Subodh Kumar Agrawal Former Resolution Professional of Golden Jubilee Hotels Private Limited, 1, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, 3rd Floor, Room No. 301, Kolkata 700013. ...Respondent No. 1 2. Golden Jubilee Hotels Private Limited Through Successful Resolution Applicant Survey No. 64, Beside Shilpakalavedika,, Shilparamam, Madhapur, Hyderabad, Telangana 500081. ...Respondent No. 2 3. BREP Asia II Indian Holding Co. II (NQ) Pte. Ltd. 77, Robinson Road #1300 Robinson 77, Singapore 068896 ...Respondent No. 3 Email: [email protected] 4. Committee of Creditors Golden Jubilee Hotels Private Limited Survey No. 64, Beside Shilpakalavedika, Shilparamam, Madhapur, Hyderabad 500081. ...Respondent No. 4 Present For Appellants: Mr. Uddyam Mukherjee & Mr. Swapnil Pattanayak, Adv. For Respondents: Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Gyanendra Kumar, Mr. Aviral Singhal, Mr. D. Kapila, Adv. for SRA Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Vivek, Advocate for R4 4 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 426, 430, 432 &710 of 2020 With Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 432 of 2020 (Arising out of the Order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderaba
OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED Appearance: BANSI M KARIA(9320) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 RAJVI N PATEL(9620) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 MR AJAY R MEHTA(453) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 Date : 27/02/2020 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The word 'domicile' is "to identify the personal law by which an individual is governed in respect of various matters such as the essential validity of a marriage, the effect of marriage on the proprietary rights of husband and wife, jurisdiction in divorce and nullity of marriage, illegitimacy, legitimation and adoption and testamentary and intestate succession to moveables. "Domicile" as pointed Page 2 of 65 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 14:46:59 IST 2020 C/SCA/2053/2020 JUDGMENT out in Halsbury's Laws of England (Fourth Edition) vol. 8, paragraph 421 is the legal relationship between an individual and a territory with a distinct legal system, which invokes that system as his personal law.It is well settled that the domicile of a person in that country in which he either has or is deemed by law to have his permanent home. "By domicile" said Lord Cranworth in Wicker v. Humes, [1858] 7 HL Cases 124, "We mean home, the permanent home". 2. "Domicile" is basically a legal concept for the purpose of determining what is the personal law applicable to an individual and eve
1. State of Maharashtra Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 (through the Government Pleader, High Court, Original Side) 2. Additional Collector, Aurangabad Office of the Collector, Near Trazeri Office, Labour Colony, Aurangabad, Maharashtra 431 001 3. Collector and District Magistrate Old Custom House, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. ... Respondents Page 1 of 95 ::: Uploaded on 07/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on 07/08/2025 21:35:48 ::: 901.WP1813.16(J).DOCX WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1689 OF 2015 1. Big Tree Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Wajeda House, Behind Gazebo House, Gulmohar Cross Road No.7, Juhu Scheme , Mumbai 400 049 2. Rajesh Balpande Director of Petitioner No.1 Having office at Wajeda House, Behind Gazebo House, Gulmohar Cross Road No.7, Jubhu Scheme, Mumbai 400 049. ... Petitioners Versus 1. State of Maharashtra Revenue and Forests Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai400 032 (through the Government Pleader, Original Side) 2. The Collector, Mumbai Suburban District, 9thfloor, Administrative Building, Government Colony, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051. ... Respondents ______________________________________________________ Mr. Naresh Thacker a/w Mr. Chakrapani Misra, Mr. Sameer Bindra, Ms. Ananya Misra i/by Khaitan & Co. for the Petitioners in WP/1813/2016 and for the Applicant in NMW/6/2017. Mr. Rohan Rajadhyakshaa/w Mr. Rajendra Barot, Mr. Dhaval Vora, Mr. DhirajkumarTotala and Mr. Tejas Raghav i/by AZB & Partners for the Petitioners in WP/1689/2015. Page 2 of 95 ::: Uploaded on 07/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on 07/08/2025 21:35:48 ::: 901.WP1813.16(J).DOCX Mr. Milind More, Addl. G. P. for Respondents Nos.1 & 3 in WP/1813/2016 and for Respondents Nos.1 & 2 in WP/1689/2015 for State of Maharashtra. ______________________________________________________ CORAM M.S. Sonak& Jitendra Jain, JJ. RESERVED ON 28 July 2025 PRONOUNCED ON 6 August 2025 Judgment (Per Jitendra Jain, J.) 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner no.1 Association of Multiplex Theatres in Writ Petition No.1813 of 2016, have sought the following reliefs: "a) to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned Amend
1.The Chairman Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council Coimbatore. 2.The Divisional Railway Manager, Office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway, Madurai. 3.The Senior Divisional Engineer, Office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway, Madurai. ... Respondents 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17860 of 2017 Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent herein to refer the petition filed on 12.09.2016 for payment of a sum of Rs.8,41,497/ along with interest, for arbitration as specified in the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. For Petitioner : M/s.AL.Ganthimathi For R1 : M/s.P.Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate For R2 & R3 : M/s.P.T.Ramkumar ORDER The writ petition was filed by the writ petitioner seeking a direction to the 1st respondent council to refer the petition filed by him dated 12.09.2016 for arbitration as contemplated under Section 18 (3) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 ( hereinafter referred as MSMED Act) 2. According to the writ petitioner that he entered into an agreement with 2nd and 3rd respondents herein for construction of platform shelters for 5 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17860 of 2017 bays in Tirunelveli and Virudhunagar Railway stations. Though, he completed the work and duly raised the bill, payments remained unpaid by the 2nd and 3rd respondent and hence he appeared to have moved the 1st respondent Council for a direction to pay the final bill amount of Rs.56,62,485/ and the security deposit amount of Rs.7,49,094/. The matter was taken up by the 1st respondent Council and notice was sent to the respondents therein (2nd and 3rd respondents herein). After couple of hearings, the 2nd and 3rd respondents submitted before the Council that a sum of Rs.51,74,428/ was paid by cheque No.264070 dated 13.07.2016. After recording the said statement, the Council in its order further recorded that the petitioner pleaded the Council to close the hearing and pass orders for payment of balance pending amount of Rs.4,88,067/ along with security deposit amount of Rs.7,49,094/. It was also further recorded that inspite of several opportunities, the respondent therein (2nd and 3rd respondent herein) failed to appear before the Council and hence conciliation was terminated giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Council for arbitration. 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17860 of 2017 3. Since the above said sum remained unpaid, the petitioner herein filed a petition before the 1st respondent Council seeking a di
Madras High Court T.Senguttuvan … vs Ashokkumar on 28 May, 2025 2025:MHC:1271 E.P.No.9 of 2021 RESERVED ON : 02.09.2024 PRONOUNCED ON : 28.05.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA E.L.P.No.9 of 2021 T.Senguttuvan … Petitioner Vs 1.Ashokkumar, K. 2.Chandramohan, K.M. 3.Tamilselvan, S. 4.Ameenulla 5.Sasikumar, K.S. 6.Nirandari, V. 7.Ravishankar, R.K. 8.Ruthramani, T. 9.Vijayakumar, R. 10.TVS Gandhi 11.Kumaresan, M 12. Gopinath, M. 13.Sakthi, K. 14.Sivan, C. 19.G.Karpagavalli 1/151 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 07:50:36 pm ) E.P.No.9 of 2021 (Respondents 15 to 18 struck off in ELP.No.9 of 2021 as per order of this Court dated 11.01.2022 made in O.A.No.672 of 2021 in ELP.No.9 of 2021) ... Respondents Prayer: Election Petition filed under Sections 80, 80A, 81, 84 r/w Sections 100, 101, 123, 123(6) & 129 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 R/w. The conduct of Election Rules, 1961, for the following reliefs: i) declare the election of the 1st respondent to No.53, Krishnagiri Assembly Constituency in the State of Tamil Nadu on 02.05.2021 as illegal, void and liable to be set aside. ii) Declare the petitioner herein as duly elected to the No.53, Krishnagiri Assembly Constituency in State of Tamil Nadu with effect from 02.05.2021. iii) Direct the 1st respondent to pay the cost of the petition. For Petitioner : Mr.Richardson Wilson For Respondent1 : Mr.P.V.Ramanjujam, Senior counsel for Mr.BAravind Srivatsa 2/151 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 07:50:36 pm ) E.P.No.9 of 2021 ORDER Challenging the election of the 1st respondent as the returned candidate of No.53, Krishnagiri Assembly Constituency, the petitioner is before this Court. 2. The petitioner has sought the following reliefs: i) Declare the election of the 1st respondent to No.53, Krishnagiri Assembly Constituency in the State of Tamil Nadu on 02.05.2021 as illegal, void and liable to be set aside. ii) Declare the petitioner herein as duly elected to the No.53, Krishnagiri Assembly Constituency in State of Tamil Nadu with effect from 02.05.2021 and iii) Direct the 1st respondent to pay the cost of the petition. 3. Petitioner's case: (i) It is the case of the petitioner that he belongs to Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (hereinafter referred to as "DMK party") and has been a resident of Velgalahally Village having been born there. The 3/151 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 07:50:36 pm ) E.P.No.9 of 2021 petitioner has been active in the political arena since his young age