<?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>2006 (12) TMI 514 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183934</link>
    <description>In SC defection proceedings, the challenge of natural justice and mala fides failed because the members had notice, access to material, and an opportunity to respond, but did not meaningfully address the electronic evidence. Independent members were found to have joined a political party on the basis of substantive conduct and admissions, so disqualification under the Tenth Schedule was upheld. Protection under paragraph 3 was unavailable to single-member legislature parties, as the split exception requires a qualifying group and cannot be read to cover a sole member. The Speaker&#039;s reference to having seen and heard the members did not amount to impermissible reliance on personal knowledge, and no illegality was shown.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Mar 2024 12:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=432838" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (12) TMI 514 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183934</link>
      <description>In SC defection proceedings, the challenge of natural justice and mala fides failed because the members had notice, access to material, and an opportunity to respond, but did not meaningfully address the electronic evidence. Independent members were found to have joined a political party on the basis of substantive conduct and admissions, so disqualification under the Tenth Schedule was upheld. Protection under paragraph 3 was unavailable to single-member legislature parties, as the split exception requires a qualifying group and cannot be read to cover a sole member. The Speaker&#039;s reference to having seen and heard the members did not amount to impermissible reliance on personal knowledge, and no illegality was shown.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183934</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>