<?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>2002 (10) TMI 782 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182475</link>
    <description>A copy of an affidavit supplied with an election petition is treated as a true copy unless the omission or variation is material, substantial, or likely to mislead the respondent; the absence of the Oath Commissioner&#039;s endorsement, seal, or signature in the supplied copy was therefore not treated as fatal non-compliance with Section 81(3). A minor misdescription or wrong spelling of a contesting candidate in the party array does not amount to non-compliance with Section 82 where the intended respondent is otherwise clearly identifiable from the record and no prejudice is caused. The election petition was thus not liable to rejection on these technical grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 May 2016 18:55:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=427829" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (10) TMI 782 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182475</link>
      <description>A copy of an affidavit supplied with an election petition is treated as a true copy unless the omission or variation is material, substantial, or likely to mislead the respondent; the absence of the Oath Commissioner&#039;s endorsement, seal, or signature in the supplied copy was therefore not treated as fatal non-compliance with Section 81(3). A minor misdescription or wrong spelling of a contesting candidate in the party array does not amount to non-compliance with Section 82 where the intended respondent is otherwise clearly identifiable from the record and no prejudice is caused. The election petition was thus not liable to rejection on these technical grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182475</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>