<?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>1983 (10) TMI 276 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183961</link>
    <description>An election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 remains a statutory proceeding, and deletion of one relief does not by itself amount to withdrawal of the petition where other reliefs survive for adjudication. The earlier orders permitting deletion of the prayer and consequential deletion of parties had attained finality and were not nullities open to challenge in the appeal. Where an election petition is dismissed for default, the Code of Civil Procedure applies on that point, but restoration under Order IX Rule 9 is confined to the petitioner whose default caused dismissal. A respondent has no locus to seek restoration, and the refusal to restore the petition was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Oct 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Jun 2016 12:55:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=432992" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (10) TMI 276 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183961</link>
      <description>An election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 remains a statutory proceeding, and deletion of one relief does not by itself amount to withdrawal of the petition where other reliefs survive for adjudication. The earlier orders permitting deletion of the prayer and consequential deletion of parties had attained finality and were not nullities open to challenge in the appeal. Where an election petition is dismissed for default, the Code of Civil Procedure applies on that point, but restoration under Order IX Rule 9 is confined to the petitioner whose default caused dismissal. A respondent has no locus to seek restoration, and the refusal to restore the petition was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Oct 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183961</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>