<?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>2003 (2) TMI 509 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183830</link>
    <description>An election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 may validly be presented to an authorised Stamp Reporter of the High Court because receipt of the petition is a ministerial act, not an exercise of judicial power. Although the High Court alone has jurisdiction to try election petitions, presentation is distinct from adjudication, and the absence of an express provision naming the receiving officer does not create a legal void. Incidental and ancillary administrative powers may be inferred to make the court&#039;s substantive jurisdiction effective, and the existing High Court Rules and practice were treated as a valid basis for authorising receipt of such petitions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Oct 2018 15:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=432569" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (2) TMI 509 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183830</link>
      <description>An election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 may validly be presented to an authorised Stamp Reporter of the High Court because receipt of the petition is a ministerial act, not an exercise of judicial power. Although the High Court alone has jurisdiction to try election petitions, presentation is distinct from adjudication, and the absence of an express provision naming the receiving officer does not create a legal void. Incidental and ancillary administrative powers may be inferred to make the court&#039;s substantive jurisdiction effective, and the existing High Court Rules and practice were treated as a valid basis for authorising receipt of such petitions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183830</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>