<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1956 (12) TMI 41 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172834</link>
    <description>An election petition filed on the next working day after the prescribed period ended on a holiday was treated as in time under the General Clauses Act, because the rule requiring filing &quot;not later than fourteen days&quot; was read as a period that permits filing on the reopening day when the office was closed. On the election-work issue, Rule 118 was held to apply only where persons are employed in connection with the election for payment; regular employees who merely do casual election work alongside their normal duties do not satisfy that test. On the facts, there was no proof of substitution from ordinary duties, so the corrupt-practice finding failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 May 2025 14:18:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=395573" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1956 (12) TMI 41 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172834</link>
      <description>An election petition filed on the next working day after the prescribed period ended on a holiday was treated as in time under the General Clauses Act, because the rule requiring filing &quot;not later than fourteen days&quot; was read as a period that permits filing on the reopening day when the office was closed. On the election-work issue, Rule 118 was held to apply only where persons are employed in connection with the election for payment; regular employees who merely do casual election work alongside their normal duties do not satisfy that test. On the facts, there was no proof of substitution from ordinary duties, so the corrupt-practice finding failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172834</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>