UDHAYANIDHI STALIN vs P.MILANY
- Court
- Madras High Court
2026:MHC:4551
O.A.Nos.860 and 861 of 2026
in E.L.P.No.18 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 26.10.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 13.11.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
O.A.Nos.860 and 861 of 2026
IN
E.L.P.No.18 of 2026
Udhayanidhi Stalin
S/o.M.K.Stalin
25/9, Chittharanjan Salai
nd
Cenotaph 2 Street
Teynampet, Chennai 600 018
Applicant in both OAs
Vs
P.Milany
S/o.K.Ponnuram
Selvaraj Illam
st
No.7-5-5/9, Sanjay Gandhi 1 Street
Palanichettipatti
Theni 625 531
Respondent in both OAs
PRAYER in O.A.No.860 of 2026 : Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8
of O.S.Rules and Rule 3 of the Rules of the Madras High Court Election
Petitions, 1967 read with Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908.
_________
Page 1 of 45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:03:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4551
O.A.Nos.860 and 861 of 2026
in E.L.P.No.18 of 2026
PRAYER in O.A.No.861 of 2026 : Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8
of O.S.Rules and Rule 3 of the Rules of the Madras High Court Election
Petitions, 1967 read with Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908.
For Applicant : Mr.P.Wilson, Senior Counsel
for Mr. Richardson Wilson
For Respondent : Mr.J.Vinoth
for Mr.A.K.M.Venkatesh
COMMON ORDER
P.Milany, an independent candidate at the General Election to
the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, 2026, from the Chepauk
constituency, has presented Election Petition No.18 of 2026 under
Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (" the RP
Act ") seeking a declaration that the election of the returned
candidate is void on the grounds in Sections 100(1)(c), 100(1)(d)(i)
and 100(1)(d)(iv) of the RP Act.
2. For convenience, the applicant is referred to as " the
returned candidate " and the respondent as " the election petitioner ".
3. On receipt of notice, the returned candidate filed two
_________
Page 2 of 45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:03:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4551
O.A.Nos.860 and 861 of 2026
in E.L.P.No.18 of 2026
applications. O.A.No.860 of 2026, under Order VI Rule 16 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC"), seeks to strike out
paragraphs 6 to 23 of the election petition. O.A.No.861 of 2026,
under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, seeks rejection of the election petition.
The election petitioner resisted both applications by a common
counter affidavit.
4. The application for rejection rests principally on the
following grounds:
(i) The election petition was not presented within
forty-five days of the date of election of the returned
candidate. It was filed on the forty-sixth day, and is
therefore barred by Section 81 and must be
dismissed under Section 86(1) of the RP Act.
(ii) The averments are vague, lack material facts and
do not satisfy Section 83 of the RP Act.
(iii) One Dilip Kumar, whose nomination is said to
have been improperly rejected, has not been
impleaded. In any event, his nomination was rightly
rejected, since Clause 6.10.3 of the Handbook for
_________
Page 3 of 45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:03:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4551
O.A.Nos.860 and 861 of 2026
in E.L.P.No.18 of 2026
Returning Officers, 2023 ("the Handbook") do not
extend to an unrecognised political party.
(iv) The averment that the returned candidate was
not present before the Notary at the time of
attestation rests merely on the place of signature. It
is speculative, and attestation is in any case a
ministerial act that cannot vitiate an election.
(v) The value declared at Sl.No.7B(i) of the Form-26
affidavit includes the building on the property, so
there is no suppression. The building was constructed
by the lessee out of trust funds, so no disclosure was
required at Sl.No.7B(ii); and the land itself was
expressly declared.
(vi) The loan of Snow Housing Private Limited need
not be disclosed. The company is a separate legal
entity, and Sl.No.8 mandates disclosure of liabilities
of the candidate and spouse alone.
(vii) The order dated 29.01.2025 of the District
Registrar (Audit) is merely a communication and not
_________
Page 4 of 45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:03:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4551
O.A.Nos.860 and 861 of 2026
in E.L.P.No.18 of 2026
a demand upon the returned candidate. No liability
arises until a demand is raised.
(viii) The loan advanced by the returned candidate's
wife to Raj Promoters was disclosed at Sl.No.7A(iii),
as it stood on the date of nomination. The election
petitioner does not plead how the declared figure is
incorrect. The alleged receivable of Rs.1,49,83,986/-
is drawn from the statement for the financial year
2024-25, whereas the affidavit relates to 2025-26;
the petition does not plead that the asset subsisted
in that year and so omits material facts.
(ix) The investments declared at Sl.No.7A(iii) cannot
amount to suppression, since the names of the
companies need not be disclosed and the value on
the date of nomination suffices. The dues of Red
Giant Movies are the liability of a partnership firm,
not of the wife of the returned candidate, who is not
pleaded to be a partner.
5.1. Mr.P.Wilson, learned Senior Counsel for the returned
_________
Page 5 of 45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:03:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4551
O.A.Nos.860 and 861 of 2026
in E.L.P.No.18 of 2026
candidate, submitted that the RP Act is a self-contained code and
the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the General Clauses
Act, 1897 have no application to election petitions. The right to be
elected and the right to challenge an election are both creatures of
statute and must be exercised strictly within the four corners of the
RP Act, without dilution or deviation.
5.2. He submitted that an election may be called in question
only by an election petition under Sections 80 and 81 of the RP Act,
and that a petition not complying with Section 81 must be dismissed
under Section 86. Section 81(1) prescribes forty-five days " from " the
date of election, a period which, he contended, includes the date of
election itself. The present petition, presented on the forty-sixth day,
is therefore incompetent and liable to be rejected at the threshold.
To buttress the said submission, he relied on the decisions in Youaraj
1 2
Rai v. Chander Bahadur Karki and Kishorlal v. Parimal Nathwani .
5.3. An election petition, he urged, must contain a concise
statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies. This
1
(2007) 1 SCC 770)
2
2011 SCC OnLine Jhar 745
_________
Page 6 of 45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:03:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4551
O.A.Nos.860 and 861 of 2026
in E.L.P.No.18 of 2026
petition is bereft of them. He relied on the decisions in Kanimozhi
3
Karunanidhi v. A. Santhana Kumar and Arikala Narasa Reddy v.
4
Venkata Ram Reddy Reddygari to fortify the said submission.
5.4. It is submitted that instructions issued by the Election
Commission under Article 324 of the Constitution carry the force of
law, and the Handbook is mandatory. The Handbook provisions
relied upon in the petition do not govern Dilip Kumar, whose
nomination was therefore rightly rejected. The petition is also bad
for non-joinder of a necessary party. His nomination was incomplete,
and there is no averment that he chose to withdraw it. A challenge
under Section 100(1)(c) of the RP Act is therefore unsustainable.
5.5. On Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the RP Act, he submitted that
the defects pointed out are ministerial and do not materially affect
the election, and that trivial irregularities cannot void it. A candidate
may file up to four nominations; admittedly three were filed, each
with its disclosures. The contention that, two nominations having
been rejected, the affidavit accompanying the third is of no use has
no foundation, because the affidavit serves only to disclose the
3
(2024) 18 SCC 592)
4
(2014) 5 SCC 312
_________
Page 7 of 45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:03:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4551
O.A.Nos.860 and 861 of 2026
in E.L.P.No.18 of 2026
required particulars, and that was done.
5.6. The allegations of non-disclosure in the Form-26 affidavit
are, according to learned Senior Counsel, false and vexatious. The
value declared for the property includes the building; where the
building was raised by a lessee, there is no suppression; and a sum
never demanded is not a liability.
5.7. He also submitted that the liability of a corporate entity is
not that of the returned candidate or his wife, the company being a
distinct legal person. The election petition is silent on the
investments of the wife of the returned candidate. The liabilities
alleged on the basis of a statement as on 31.03.2025 cannot be the
foundation of a challenge, as the position would have changed in
the relevant financial year 2025-26.
5.8. It is further submitted that the wife's investment in Red
Giant Movies, a partnership firm, does not make her a partner, and
so no suppression arises. None of these allegations materially
affected the election, and the pleadings on non-disclosure are
_________
Page 8 of 45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:03:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4551
O.A.Nos.860 and 861 of 2026
in E.L.P.No.18 of 2026
therefore vague, vexatious and devoid of material facts, and should
be struck out and the election petition rejected. He relied on the
5
decision in Ajmera Shyam v. Kova Laxmi , for the proposition that an
omission not of a substantial character, and not materially affecting
the result of the election, does not fall within Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of
the RP Act.
6.1. Mr.J.Vinoth, learned counsel for the election petitioner,
countered that the petition was presented within time. By virtue of
Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the first day is excluded,
and the forty-five days run from the day following the date of
election. He relied on the decision of the Three-Judge Bench of the
6
Supreme Court in Tarun Prasad Chatterjee v. Dinanath Sharma .
6.2. The election petition, he submitted, contains a concise
statement of all material facts on which each of the grounds under
Sections 100(1)(c), 100(1)(d)(i) and 100(1)(d)(iv) of the RP Act rests.
Specific facts are pleaded about the improper rejection of the
nomination of Dilip Kumar. Under Section 82 of the RP Act, Dilip
5
(2026) 3 SCC 373
6
(2000) 8 SCC 649
_________
Page 9 of 45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:03:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4551
O.A.Nos.860 and 861 of 2026
in E.L.P.No.18 of 2026
Kumar need not be impleaded, since no declaration under Section
84 of the RP Act is sought and no corrupt practice is alleged against
him. The Returning Officer rejected the nomination merely because
the main candidate's nomination was accepted and the other was a
substitute, without following instructions 6.10.3, 6.10.3(iv) and
6.10.3(vii) of the Handbook. The rejection was therefore improper.
6.3. Referring to the Form-26 affidavit annexed to the petition,
he submitted that the notarisation does not conform to the
prescribed form and that the nomination was therefore improperly
accepted. The petition pleads, with particulars, the suppression of
two buildings, of the returned candidate's liabilities to the
Government, and of the investments and advances of his wife. The
application offers only explanations and justifications. These raise
triable issues; an explanation cannot be a ground for rejection or for
striking out pleadings, since neither falls within any of the
recognised grounds.
7. I have given anxious consideration to the rival submissions
and have perused the material on record.
_________
Page 10 of 45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:03:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4551
O.A.Nos.860 and 861 of 2026
in E.L.P.No.18 of 2026
8. O.A.No.861 of 2026 invokes Order VII Rule 11 CPC, and
O.A.No.860 of 2026 invokes Order VI Rule 16 CPC, to strike out
paragraphs 6 to 23 of the petition. The provisions read as follows:
ORDER VII RULE 11 OF CPC
“11. Rejection of plaint —The plaint shall be rejected
in the following cases:—
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the
plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the
valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to
do so;
(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the
plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and
the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply
the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by
the Court, fails to do so;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the
plaint to be barred by any law;
(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;
(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions
of Rule 9;
_________
Page 11 of 45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:03:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4551
O.A.Nos.860 and 861 of 2026
in E.L.P.No.18 of 2026
Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the
correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite
stamp-papers shall not be extended unless the Court,
for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff
was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature
from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite
stamp-papers, as the case may be, within the time
fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time
would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.”
_________
Page 12 of 45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:03:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4551
O.A.Nos.860 and 861 of 2026
in E.L.P.No.18 of 2026
ORDER VI RULE 16
“16. Striking out pleadings .—The Court may at any
stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or
amended any matter in any pleading—
(a) which may be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or
vexatious, or
(b) which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay
the fair trial of the suit, or
(c) which is otherwise an abuse of the process of the
Court.”
9. As per Order VII Rule 11 CPC, a plaint must be rejected if it
falls within any of the enumerated clauses. It is well settled that, in
considering such an application, the Court looks only to the
averments in the plaint and, at the most, to the documents annexed
to it. The written statement and the defence of the defendants are
wholly immaterial at this stage and cannot be looked into. If a
meaningful reading of the plaint as a whole shows that the suit is
manifestly vexatious and meritless, disclosing no right to sue, the
power under Order VII Rule 11 may be exercised, for such a
proceeding ought not to be allowed to proceed. In this regard, useful
reference can be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in
_________
Page 13 of 45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:03:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4551
O.A.Nos.860 and 861 of 2026
in E.L.P.No.18 of 2026
7
Shakti Bhog Food Industries Limited v. Central Bank of India .
10. I shall therefore examine each ground raised by the
returned candidate and consider whether the election petition
pleads material facts disclosing a cause of action to declare the
election void, so that the right to sue is clear, or whether it is
vexatious and liable to be rejected. The general election to the Tamil
Nadu Legislative Assembly was announced on 15.03.2026, and the
notification was issued by the Election Commission on 30.03.2026.
Nominations were filed in accordance with the schedule, polling was
held on 23.04.2026, and the results were declared on 04.05.2026,
when the returned candidate was declared duly elected.
11. The election petitioner, a candidate at the election, calls
the declaration of the returned candidate in question under Sections
100(1)(c), 100(1)(d)(i) and 100(1)(d)(iv) of the RP Act. The returned
candidate seeks rejection of the petition on several grounds, which
are dealt with separately below.
7
(2020) 17 SCC 260
_________
Page 14 of 45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:03:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4551
O.A.Nos.860 and 861 of 2026
in E.L.P.No.18 of 2026
LIMITATION:
12. The returned candidate contends that the petition was not
presented within the period prescribed by Section 81(1) of the RP
Act. The relevant provisions are extracted below:
“ 81. Presentation of petitions —
(1) An election petition calling in question any election
may be presented on one or more of the grounds
specified in sub-section (1) of Section 100 and Section
101 to the High Court by any candidate at such election
or any elector within forty-five days from, but not
earlier than the date of election of the returned
candidate or if there are more than one returned
candidate at the election and dates of their election are
different, the later of those two dates.
Explanation.—In this sub-section, “elector” means a
person who was entitled to vote at the election to
which the election petition relates, whether he has
voted at such election or not.
(2) *
(3) Every election petition shall be accompanied by as
many copies thereof as there are respondents
mentioned in the petition and every such copy shall be
attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be
a true copy of the petition.
_________
Page 15 of 45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:03:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4551
O.A.Nos.860 and 861 of 2026
in E.L.P.No.18 of 2026
86. Trial of election petitions .—
(1) The High Court shall dismiss an election petition
which does not comply with the provisions of Section
81 or Section 82 or Section 117.
Explanation—An order of the High Court dismissing an
election petition under this sub-section shall be
deemed to be an order made under clause (a) of
Section 98.”
13. Section 81 of the RP Act permits an election petition on
any of the grounds in Sections 100(1) and 101 of the RP Act to be
presented within forty-five days from, but not earlier than, the date
of election of the returned candidate. A petition that fails to comply
with Section 81 of the RP Act must be dismissed by the Court under
Section 86 of the RP Act.
14. The RP Act is a self-contained code. There is no room for
condonation of delay, or for any liberal or sympathetic construction
of the period prescribed for presenting an election petition. A delay
of even a single day is fatal, and the petition must be dismissed
under Section 86 of the RP Act. The right to be elected and the right
_________
Page 16 of 45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:03:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4551
O.A.Nos.860 and 861 of 2026
in E.L.P.No.18 of 2026
to challenge an election are statutory rights, governed strictly by
the Act.
15. The question is how the forty-five days are to be reckoned.
Does the date of election of the returned candidate stand excluded,
so that the period begins on the following day by virtue of Section 9
of the General Clauses Act, 1897? Or, is that date included and
counted as the first day?
16. The issue is no longer res integra and has been settled by
the Three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Tarun Prasad
Chatterjee ( supra ), where the election petition had likewise been
presented on the forty-sixth day from the date of election. Relying
on Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the Supreme Court
held that the Act gives statutory recognition to the general rule of
construction that, in computing a prescribed period, the first day is
excluded and the last day included. The Supreme Court held that
the date of election must be excluded, so as to secure to the parties
the full forty-five days for presenting the petition, and held the
petition before it to be within time. The relevant passage reads:
_________
Page 17 of 45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:03:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4551
O.A.Nos.860 and 861 of 2026
in E.L.P.No.18 of 2026
“10. Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 gives
statutory recognition to the well-established principle
applicable to the construction of statutes that ordinarily
in computing the period of time prescribed, the rule
observed is to exclude the first and include the last day.
11. In Halsbury's Laws of England, 37th Edn., Vol. 3, p.
92, it is stated as follows:
“Days included or excluded - When a period of
time running from a given day or even to
another day or event is prescribed by law or
fixed as contract, and the question arises
whether the computation is to be made
inclusively or exclusively of the first-mentioned
or of the last-mentioned day, regard must be
had to the context and to the purposes for
which the computation has to be made. Where
there is room for doubt, the enactment or
instrument ought to be so construed as to
effectuate and not to defeat the intention of
Parliament or of the parties, as the case may
be. Expressions such as ‘from such a day’ or
‘until such a day’ are equivocal, since they do
not make it clear whether the inclusion or the
exclusion of the day named may be intended.
As a general rule, however, the effect of
defining a period in such a manner is to
_________
Page 18 of 45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:03:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4551
O.A.Nos.860 and 861 of 2026
in E.L.P.No.18 of 2026
exclude the first day and to include the last
day.”
12. Section 9 says that in any Central Act or regulation
made after the commencement of the General Clauses
Act, 1897, it shall be sufficient for the purpose of
excluding the first in a series of days or any other
period of time, to use the word “from”, and, for the
purpose of including the last in a series of days or any
period of time, to use the word “to”. The principle is
that when a period is delimited by statute or rule, which
has both a beginning and an end and the word “from”
is used indicating the beginning, the opening day is to
be excluded and if the last day is to be included the
word “to” is to be used. In order to exclude the first day
of the period, the crucial thing to be noted is whether
the period of limitation is delimited by a series of days
or by any fixed period. This is intended to obviate the
difficulties or inconvenience that may be caused to
some parties. For instance, if a policy of insurance has
to be good for one day from 1st January, it might be
valid only for a few hours after its execution and the
party or the beneficiary in the insurance policy would
not get reasonable time to lay claim, unless 1st January
is excluded from the period of computation.
13. It was argued that the language used in Section
81(1) that “within forty-five days from, but not earlier
_________
Page 19 of 45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:03:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4551
O.A.Nos.860 and 861 of 2026
in E.L.P.No.18 of 2026
than the date of election of the returned candidate”
expresses a different intention and Section 9 of the
General Clauses Act has no application. We do not find
any force in this contention. In order to apply Section 9,
the first condition to be fulfilled is whether a prescribed
period is fixed “from” a particular point. When the
period is marked by terminus a quo and terminus ad
quem, the canon of interpretation envisaged in Section
9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 require to exclude
the first day. The words “from” and “within” used in
Section 81(1) of the RP Act, 1951 do not express any
contrary intention.
14. By Section 81(1), the legislation fixes the period for
filing election petition and at the same time states that
no elector or candidate shall file election petition before
the date of election of the returned candidate and if
there are more than one returned candidates at the
election and dates of their election are different, the
later of those two dates. The learned Senior Counsel for
the appellant contended that if the date of election of
the candidate is excluded from computing the period of
limitation of 45 days, the period of limitation would be
extended by one day and, therefore, it is against the
mandate of the statute. It was also contended that the
filing of the application on the date of election of the
returned candidate cannot be considered as a valid
presentation of petition as envisaged in the section. We
_________
Page 20 of 45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:03:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4551
O.A.Nos.860 and 861 of 2026
in E.L.P.No.18 of 2026
do not think that any such interpretation is possible by
a conjoint reading of Section 81(1) of the RP Act, 1951
and Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The
first day for the period of limitation is required to be
excluded for the convenience of the parties and if the
declaration of the result is delayed or is done late in the
night, the candidate or elector would hardly get any
time for presentation of the election petition. Law
comes to the rescue of such parties to give full forty-
five days' period for filing the election petition.
Nevertheless, any petition presented on the date of
election of the returned candidate would be certainly
within the period of limitation as it is a presentation on
the date of election of the returned candidate.
15. In the instant case, the date of election of the
returned candidate being 28-11-1998, the election
petition filed on 12-1-1999 on exclusion of the first day
from computing the period of limitation, was in time
and the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the
petition filed by the appellant. This appeal is without
any merits and the same is dismissed, however, without
costs.”
17. Although Tarun Prasad Chatterjee ( supra ) holds that
Section 9 of the General Clauses Act applies to the computation of
limitation under Section 81(1) of the RP Act, so that the date of
_________
Page 21 of 45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:03:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4551
O.A.Nos.860 and 861 of 2026
in E.L.P.No.18 of 2026
election is excluded from the forty-five days, learned Senior Counsel
for the returned candidate vehemently contended, on the strength
of Youaraj Rai ( supra ), that a later decision of a Three-Judge Bench
held that the petition must be filed within forty-five days from the
date of election, with the date of election included in the count.
18. A reading of Youaraj Rai ( supra ) shows that the
applicability of Section 9 of the General Clauses Act was not in issue
there. On the facts of that case, all other nominations had been
withdrawn, and the sole remaining candidate was declared elected
on the very day of withdrawal. The election petition was presented
more than forty-five days from that date, though within forty-five
days of the declaration of results in the other constituencies in the
general election, and was held not maintainable, because the forty-
five days ran from the date of election of the returned candidate.
That date related back to the last date for withdrawal of
nominations, on which the returned candidate stood elected. The
decision turned on the identification of the date of election, and
does not touch the exclusion of that date by Section 9 of the
General Clauses Act. Reliance on the said decision is, therefore,
_________
Page 22 of 45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:03:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4551
O.A.Nos.860 and 861 of 2026
in E.L.P.No.18 of 2026
misplaced.
19. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Jharkhand
High Court in Kishorlal ( supra ), where the learned Single Judge,
following Youaraj Rai ( supra ), rejected an election petition as time-
barred by including the date of declaration of the result. It must,
however, be noted that, by order dated 17.09.2012, the Supreme
Court set aside the orders of the Jharkhand High Court and
remanded the matter for a decision on merits, along with the
question of limitation. That decision, therefore, affords no assistance
to the returned candidate.
20. Applying the law laid down in Tarun Prasad Chatterjee
( supra ), the results having been declared on 04.05.2026, that date
stands excluded under Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
The forty-five days, accordingly, commence on 05.05.2026 and
expire on 18.06.2026. The election petition, presented on
18.06.2026, was filed on the last day of that period and is well
within time. The objection on limitation fails.
_________
Page 23 of 45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:03:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4551
O.A.Nos.860 and 861 of 2026
in E.L.P.No.18 of 2026
IMPROPER REJECTION OF THE NOMINATION OF DILIP KUMAR
(SECTION 100(1)(c)):
21. The election petition invokes Section 100(1)(c) of the RP
Act on the ground that the nomination of one Dilip Kumar was
improperly rejected. Learned Senior Counsel for the returned
candidate contends that, Dilip Kumar not being a party, the petition
must fail, since he has sought no relief and the election petitioner
cannot plead his cause. He further contends that instructions 6.10.3,
6.10.3(iv) and 6.10.3(vii) in Chapter 6 of the Handbook, on which
the petition relies, apply only to candidates of recognised political
parties; that only Clause 8.4.2(m) governs candidates of
unrecognised registered parties; and that, since the petition does
not plead that provision, it lacks material facts and must be
rejected.
22. It is relevant at this juncture to refer to Sections 82 to 84
of the RP Act:
“ 82. Parties of the petition —A petitioner shall join
as respondents to his petition—
_________
Page 24 of 45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:03:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4551
O.A.Nos.860 and 861 of 2026
in E.L.P.No.18 of 2026
( a ) where the petitioner, in addition to claiming
declaration that the election of all or any of the
returned candidates is void, claims a further declaration
that he himself or any other candidate has been duly
elected, all the contesting candidates other than the
petitioner, and where no such further declaration is
claimed, all the returned candidates; and
( b ) any other candidate against whom allegations of
any corrupt practice are made in the petition.
83. Contents of petition —
(1) An election petition—
( a ) shall contain a concise statement of the material
facts on which the petitioner relies;
( b ) shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice
that the petitioner alleges, including as full a statement
as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have
committed such corrupt practice and the date and
place of the commission of each such practice; and
( c ) shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the
manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(5 of 1908) for the verification of pleadings:
_________
Page 25 of 45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:03:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4551
O.A.Nos.860 and 861 of 2026
in E.L.P.No.18 of 2026
Provided that where the petitioner alleges any corrupt
practice, the petition shall also be accompanied by an
affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the
allegation of such corrupt practice and the particulars
thereof.
(2) Any schedule or annexure to the petition shall also
be signed by the petitioner and verified in the same
manner as the petition.
84. Relief that may be claimed by the petitioner —
A petitioner may, in addition to claiming a declaration
that the election of all or any of the returned
candidates is void, claim a further declaration that he
himself or any other candidate has been duly elected."
23. Section 82 of the RP Act requires the petitioner to join the
returned candidate where he seeks only a declaration that the
election is void. Where he further claims a declaration that he
himself or another candidate has been duly elected, all the other
contesting candidates must also be joined. In addition, any
candidate against whom an allegation of corrupt practice is made
must be joined, whether or not relief under Section 84 of the RP Act
is sought.
_________
Page 26 of 45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:03:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4551
O.A.Nos.860 and 861 of 2026
in E.L.P.No.18 of 2026
24. In the case at hand, the election petitioner seeks only a
declaration that the election of the returned candidate is void, and
he has accordingly joined the returned candidate alone. No corrupt
practice is alleged against Dilip Kumar, and relief is claimed only
under Section 100(1)(c) of the RP Act on account of the improper
rejection of his nomination. Sections 82 and 84 of the RP Act
together show that the scheme of the Act contemplates a challenge
founded on the improper rejection of the nomination of another
candidate, without that candidate being joined. The question of
impleading Dilip Kumar therefore does not arise, and the petition
has been filed against the necessary party for the relief sought.
25. The averments in paragraphs 9(i), 9(ii) and 9(v) relate to
the improper rejection of the nomination of Dilip Kumar. It is pleaded
that Tamilaga Vetri Kazhagam (TVK) is an unrecognised registered
political party and that Dilip Kumar filed his nomination on
06.04.2026 as a candidate set up by it. The nomination was rejected
on 07.04.2026 for the following reason: " Main candidate nomination
is accepted. Hence substitute nomination is rejected. " It is further
_________
Page 27 of 45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:03:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4551
O.A.Nos.860 and 861 of 2026
in E.L.P.No.18 of 2026
pleaded that he filed the nomination under Part-II and paragraph
C(ii) of Part-III of Form-2B, subscribed by ten electors of the Chepauk
constituency as proposers, and that the Returning Officer rejected it
without following instructions 6.10.3, 6.10.3(iv) and 6.10.3(vii),
failing to treat him as an independent candidate.
26. Learned Senior Counsel for the returned candidate
vehemently contends that instruction 6.10.3 applies only to
nomination papers of candidates set up by recognised national and
State parties, and not to those set up by unrecognised parties. He
also contends that paragraph 8.4 of the Handbook deals solely with
the allotment of symbols, and that the election petitioner has
pleaded nothing on instruction 8.4.2.
27. The averments show that Dilip Kumar filed his nomination
on 06.04.2026 in Form-2B, completing Part-II and paragraph C(ii) of
Part-III. At the scrutiny on 07.04.2026, he did not produce the
authorisation of the political party concerned in Form-B. Clause
6.10.3(iv) of the Handbook provides:
"If a candidate, who filed his nomination paper as
candidate claiming to be set up by an unrecognised
_________
Page 28 of 45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:03:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4551
O.A.Nos.860 and 861 of 2026
in E.L.P.No.18 of 2026
political party, fails to bring in his favour a notice
from the concerned political party in Forms 'A' and
'B', his nomination paper will be accepted if it is
subscribed by ten electors as proposers, and he
would be deemed to be an independent candidate."
28. According to the nomination paper produced as document
14, it was subscribed by ten electors of the Chepauk constituency as
proposers. The election petitioner, therefore, contends that the
nomination ought to have been accepted, and Dilip Kumar treated
as an independent candidate, under Clause 6.10.3(iv). Learned
Senior Counsel answers that the candidate had indicated no order of
preference of symbols, that the nomination form was thus
incomplete, and that it was rightly rejected. The election petition,
for its part, pleads that the omission to indicate a choice of symbols
is not a defect of a substantial character under Rule 4 of the
Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 (" the Election Rules "), since, once
a nomination is accepted, a symbol is allotted automatically.
29. Whether the nomination of Dilip Kumar nomination was
improperly rejected, and whether paragraph 6 or paragraph 8 of the
Handbook governs, are triable issues that cannot be resolved
_________
Page 29 of 45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:03:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4551
O.A.Nos.860 and 861 of 2026
in E.L.P.No.18 of 2026
without evidence. The petition pleads the material facts: the filing of
the nomination in Form-2B, the particulars in Part-II and paragraph
C(ii) of Part-III, the ground of rejection recorded by the Returning
Officer, and the reliance on instruction 6.10.3(iv). Improper rejection
of a nomination is a ground on which an election may be declared
void under Section 100(1)(c) of the RP Act. The petition, therefore,
falls within none of the grounds for rejection or for striking out at the
threshold, before trial.
IMPROPER ACCEPTANCE OF THE NOMINATION OF THE
RETURNED CANDIDATE:
30. Paragraph 10 of the petition states that the Form-26
affidavit filed with the returned candidate's nomination was
defective, as it was not notarised in the form required by the Rules,
and that the Returning Officer nevertheless accepted it. It further
pleads that two nominations were filed on 02.04.2026, each with a
Form-26 affidavit, and that another was filed on 06.04.2026, all
being uploaded. On scrutiny, the Returning Officer accepted the first
nomination of the returned candidate and rejected the others on
07.04.2026; that rejection is not under challenge. Rule 4A of the
_________
Page 30 of 45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:03:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4551
O.A.Nos.860 and 861 of 2026
in E.L.P.No.18 of 2026
Election Rules, as pleaded, requires the affidavit to be sworn by the
candidate before a Notary. The petition alleges that the declaration
and verification by the candidate, and the Notary's attestation, do
not conform to the prescribed form, rendering the nomination
defective. Since a defective nomination was accepted, the petition
invokes Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the RP Act.
31. Referring to the affidavit, learned Senior Counsel for the
returned candidate contended that the candidate had signed at the
proper place and that the Notary had merely attested at two places,
which is a clerical slip that does not invalidate the notarisation. As
to the notarial certificate, he said that the nomination form
admittedly contains one, and the rejection of another nomination
does not make the affidavit improper. Moreover, neither the RP Act
nor the Election Rules requires a separate notarial certificate.
32. He further contended that the manner of attestation is not
a substantial or material defect capable of invalidating the
notarisation or the nomination, and that the pleadings are therefore
unnecessary and vexatious, and the relief under Section 100(1)(d)(i)
_________
Page 31 of 45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:03:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4551
O.A.Nos.860 and 861 of 2026
in E.L.P.No.18 of 2026
of the RP Act unsustainable. It is common ground that the first
nomination of the returned candidate was accepted and the others
rejected. The rejected nomination forms, with their Form-26
affidavits, carry a notarial certificate duly attested by the Notary,
whereas in the accepted nomination form the Notary's attestation
appears at two places.
33. Whether the Returning Officer was justified in accepting
the nomination, when its Form-26 affidavit is alleged to be not in
accordance with the Rules, is a matter for the trial. It must be
considered along with the other triable issues on Form-26, after
evidence has been led.
SUPPRESSION AND NON-DISCLOSURE OF ASSETS IN THE
FORM-26 AFFIDAVIT (SECTION 100(1)(d)(iv)):
34. Paragraphs 11 to 17 of the petition allege suppression of
assets and liabilities by the returned candidate in the Form-26
affidavit. In summary, they are as under:
(i) Residential building (Item 7B(iv)). Only two
buildings, at Royapettah and Pallikaranai, were
_________
Page 32 of 45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:03:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4551
O.A.Nos.860 and 861 of 2026
in E.L.P.No.18 of 2026
disclosed. The returned candidate purchased
property at Ulundai Village, Thiruvallur Taluk and
District, under sale deed dated 05.09.2012
(Document No.3612/2012). The Encumbrance
Certificate dated 14.05.2026 shows a house on it,
which has not been alienated, and its existence has
been suppressed.
(ii) Non-agricultural land (Item 7B(ii)). The
details of Plot No.108, Dr.Seethapathi Nagar,
Velachery, were furnished. The extract of the Town
Survey Land Register dated 14.06.2016, issued by
the Tahsildar, Velachery and standing in the returned
candidate's name, shows a storeyed building,
whereas the sale deed dated 16.06.2017 describes
vacant land. By comparing the two, the petition
infers that substantial sums were invested in
construction, which was suppressed.
(iii) Liabilities to public financial institutions
and Government (Item 8(i)). The returned
candidate and his wife stood as personal guarantors
_________
Page 33 of 45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:03:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4551
O.A.Nos.860 and 861 of 2026
in E.L.P.No.18 of 2026
for a term loan of Rs.7 crores availed by Snow
Housing Private Limited from the State Bank of India
(SBI), secured by mortgage of land in Survey No.7,
Neelankarai Village. The guarantee is reflected in the
SBI sanction letter dated 23.08.2022, which was filed
with the Registrar of Companies on 13.10.2022. The
Encumbrance Certificate dated 08.06.2026 confirms
that the loan had not been discharged on the date of
nomination. The liability was suppressed.
(iv) Government dues (Item 8(ix)). A disputed
liability of Rs.1,07,854/- to the Registration
Department was suppressed. It arises from the order
dated 29.01.2025 of the District Registrar (Audit),
Registration District of Chengalpattu, noted in the
Encumbrance Certificate dated 14.05.2026. In
respect of Document No.3612/2012, proceedings
under Section 47A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act are
pending, under which the returned candidate is liable
to pay a deficit of stamp duty and registration fee of
Rs.1,07,854/-. The information furnished under the
_________
Page 34 of 45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:03:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4551
O.A.Nos.860 and 861 of 2026
in E.L.P.No.18 of 2026
RTI Act on 12.06.2026 confirms this liability as on the
date of nomination.
(v) Loans and advances (Item 7A(v)). A loan of
Rs.6.75 crores advanced by the wife of the returned
candidate, Mrs.Kiruthiga, to Raj Promoters Private
Limited was suppressed. The company's annual
financial statement as on 31.03.2025, filed with the
Ministry of Corporate Affairs on 20.01.2026, reveals
this liability of the company to her.
(vi) Other assets (Item 7A(viii)). A receivable of
Rs.1,49,83,986/- due to the wife of the returned
candidate from Raj Promoters Private Limited was
suppressed. The company's financial statement
discloses it as a trade payable to her.
(vii) Investments (Item 7A(iii)). The market value
of the returned candidate's investments is stated as
Rs.5,41,260/-, and his wife's as Rs.3,96,885/-, but the
names of the mutual funds, the units and the folio
numbers are not furnished. For shares, only a book
value of Rs.16,50,100/- is given for the returned
_________
Page 35 of 45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:03:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4551
O.A.Nos.860 and 861 of 2026
in E.L.P.No.18 of 2026
candidate and Rs.1,40,300/- for shares in unlisted
companies. The names of the unlisted companies,
the number of shares and their current market value
are not disclosed.
(viii) Jointly held assets (Item 7A). The affidavit
declares that the wife has invested Rs.2,63,58,142/-
in Red Giant Movies. The GST portal discloses that
Red Giant Movies is a partnership firm, yet the extent
of her joint ownership or share of interest has not
been disclosed, and stands suppressed.
35. Learned Senior Counsel for the returned candidate
answered these allegations one by one. On Item 7B(iv), the property
at Ulundai Village was declared at Rs.2,79,96,440/-, a
value that includes the building.
36. Though the building was not separately valued, the value
furnished for the Ulundai land is inclusive of it, so the building has
been accounted for and there is no suppression. It is immaterial
whether the property is declared as residential land or under the
_________
Page 36 of 45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:03:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4551
O.A.Nos.860 and 861 of 2026
in E.L.P.No.18 of 2026
head of residential property, since a building may well be
constructed on agricultural land.
37. As to the building at No.108, Raja Street, Dr. Seethapathi
Nagar, Velachery, under Item 7B(ii), the form requires disclosure
only of investments made by the candidate or spouse towards
construction. The land was leased to SS Education Trust on
31.05.2018 for ten years, and the Trust made the construction.
Since neither the returned candidate nor his spouse constructed
anything, no disclosure was required and there was no suppression.
38. On the personal guarantee for the loan of Snow Housing
Private Limited, he submitted that this is not the liability of the
returned candidate or his wife, the company being a separate legal
entity. A guarantor's liability arises only upon default by the
principal borrower and invocation of the guarantee by the lender,
and the petition does not plead that the loan became overdue or
that SBI invoked the guarantee. It was therefore not a liability on the
date of the affidavit, and its non-disclosure is no suppression.
_________
Page 37 of 45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:03:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4551
O.A.Nos.860 and 861 of 2026
in E.L.P.No.18 of 2026
39. On the dues of Rs.1,07,854/-, he contended that the
proceedings of the District Registrar are only an internal
communication, and that until a demand is raised on the returned
candidate it is no liability, so that there was no suppression on the
date of nomination. As to the wife's investment in Raj Promoters
Private Limited, stated as Rs.5,76,23,762/-, and the corresponding
receivables, the financial statement relied upon relates to 2024-25,
whereas the nomination was filed in 2025-26, when the figures
would have changed. The petition does not plead how the figures for
the year ending 31.03.2026 were verified, so the allegations are
vague and devoid of material facts and deserve to be rejected.
40. On the mutual funds, he contended that Form-26 does not
require the names of the funds or folio details, and that only their
value is sought, which has been furnished. On Red Giant Movies, he
contended that the wife is only an investor and not a partner, and
that the petition does not say on what basis she is claimed to be a
partner. The allegation of non-disclosure of a partnership interest is
therefore devoid of material facts.
_________
Page 38 of 45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:03:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4551
O.A.Nos.860 and 861 of 2026
in E.L.P.No.18 of 2026
41. The election petition furnishes particulars of the two
properties and of the construction on them, by way of the Town
Survey Land Register extracts and the Encumbrance Certificates,
and thereby pleads the existence of the two buildings belonging to
the returned candidate. It cannot be said that these averments are
unnecessary or vexatious, or that they disclose no cause of action.
The explanations offered by the returned candidate cannot be
considered at this stage. Whether the buildings were included in the
declared values, and whether construction by a lessee needed to be
disclosed, are triable issues.
42. The petition annexes the order dated 29.01.2025 of the
District Registrar (Audit), which fixes a liability of Rs.1,07,854/- on
the returned candidate in respect of the property registered at the
Sunguvarchatram Registrar Office, and relies on the RTI information
of 12.06.2026 to show that the liability persisted on the date of
nomination. Whether a demand was raised, and whether it matured
into a liability as the returned candidate disputes, is a triable issue.
43. The returned candidate contends that his and his wife's
_________
Page 39 of 45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:03:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4551
O.A.Nos.860 and 861 of 2026
in E.L.P.No.18 of 2026
liability as guarantors for the Rs.7 crore term loan of Snow Housing
Private Limited arises only upon default by the borrower and
invocation of the guarantee by the bank. The petition furnishes the
particulars of the guarantee, the sanction letter of the bank and the
Encumbrance Certificate dated 08.06.2026, showing the term loan
to be outstanding on the date of nomination. As per Section 128 of
the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the liability of a guarantor is
co-extensive with that of the principal debtor. Whether there was a
liability of the returned candidate to SBI that required disclosure
therefore calls for a full trial, as the necessary material facts have
been pleaded.
44. As to Clause 7A(v), the election petitioner asserts that the
advances of Rs.6.75 crores and the receivables of Rs.1,49,83,986/-
from Raj Promoters Private Limited were reported in the company's
annual financial statement as on 31.03.2025, filed with the Ministry
of Corporate Affairs on 20.01.2026, and were suppressed in the
Form-26 affidavit.
45. The petition further pleads that, under Clause 7A(iii), the
_________
Page 40 of 45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:03:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4551
O.A.Nos.860 and 861 of 2026
in E.L.P.No.18 of 2026
omission to furnish the names of mutual funds, folio numbers and
particulars of shares, together with the non-disclosure of the
advances receivable from the private limited company on the date
of nomination, amounts to suppression. The returned candidate
contends that it is sufficient to furnish the overall value of the
investment, without particulars of folios and units for each holding.
That too is a matter for trial.
46. The returned candidate also contends that the form does
not require disclosure of partnership details and that his wife is not
a partner in Red Giant Movies. The petition, relying on the GST
portal, asserts that Red Giant Movies is a partnership firm in which
she invested as a partner and that this joint ownership was not
disclosed. Whether the investment of Rs.2,63,58,142/- reflects her
status as an investor or as a partner, and whether there was any
non-disclosure, are issues for determination after evidence has been
led at the trial.
CONCLUSION:
47. As noted earlier, on an application to reject a plaint under
_________
Page 41 of 45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:03:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4551
O.A.Nos.860 and 861 of 2026
in E.L.P.No.18 of 2026
Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the averments in the plaint or election
petition read as a whole, together with the documents filed with it,
may be considered. The written statement and any material put
forward by the defendant are immaterial at this stage. The election
petition here pleads the material facts on the alleged suppressions
in the Form-26 affidavit, in support of the relief under Section 100(1)
(d)(iv) of the RP Act.
48. The election petition furnishes the necessary material
facts on the improper rejection of a nomination, the improper
acceptance of the nomination of the returned candidate, and the
alleged suppressions, in support of the grounds under Sections
100(1)(c), 100(1)(d)(i) and 100(1)(d)(iv) of the RP Act. These issues
call for a full trial. Whether there has been non-disclosure and, if so,
whether it is substantial enough to have materially affected the
result of the election, can be decided only after evidence has been
led. The decision in Kanimozhi Karunanidhi ( supra ), on which
learned Senior Counsel relied, is therefore inapplicable on the facts
of this case.
_________
Page 42 of 45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:03:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4551
O.A.Nos.860 and 861 of 2026
in E.L.P.No.18 of 2026
49. For the aforegiven reasons, the petition does not fall within
any clause of Order VII Rule 11 CPC and does not lack the material
facts required by Section 83 of the RP Act. The pleadings in
paragraphs 6 to 23 are neither unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous
nor vexatious, nor do they tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay a
fair trial or amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. Order VI
Rule 16 CPC is therefore not attracted.
_________
Page 43 of 45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:03:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4551
O.A.Nos.860 and 861 of 2026
in E.L.P.No.18 of 2026
50. Accordingly, O.A.Nos.860 and 861 of 2026 stand
dismissed. The observations in this order are confined to the
limited purpose of deciding these applications, and shall not be
construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the election
petition, which shall be decided on the evidence at the trial.
The returned candidate shall file his reply statement within
four weeks from today. List the Election Petition on 11.12.2026.
13.11.2026
Index : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
gya
_________
Page 44 of 45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:03:00 pm )
2026:MHC:4551
O.A.Nos.860 and 861 of 2026
in E.L.P.No.18 of 2026
G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
gya
Pre-Delivery Common Order in
O.A.Nos.860 and 861 of 2026
IN
E.L.P.No.18 of 2026
13.11.2026
_________
Page 45 of 45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:03:00 pm )