<?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>2004 (4) TMI 603 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182963</link>
    <description>In a single transferable vote election under the applicable panchayat rules, the quota requirement was construed as operating at the initial stage and not as a rigid bar at the final stage. The rules were read purposively so that the count could proceed by elimination until a candidate could be duly declared elected, ensuring that the electoral process was completed and the office filled. An election petition was also held maintainable where the grievance was the Returning Officer&#039;s failure to complete the process according to law and the refusal to declare the rightful winner. The appellant was therefore entitled to be declared elected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Jun 2024 17:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=429497" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (4) TMI 603 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182963</link>
      <description>In a single transferable vote election under the applicable panchayat rules, the quota requirement was construed as operating at the initial stage and not as a rigid bar at the final stage. The rules were read purposively so that the count could proceed by elimination until a candidate could be duly declared elected, ensuring that the electoral process was completed and the office filled. An election petition was also held maintainable where the grievance was the Returning Officer&#039;s failure to complete the process according to law and the refusal to declare the rightful winner. The appellant was therefore entitled to be declared elected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182963</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>