<?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>2010 (12) TMI 1250 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188812</link>
    <description>Procedural defects in an anti-defection petition, including imperfect verification, irregular publication of Forms and Gazette material, or gaps in register maintenance, were treated as directory and evidentiary only, so they did not defeat proceedings where no prejudice was shown. On the substantive facts, election on the party ticket, formation of a separate group, voluntary giving up of party membership, and voting against a valid whip attracted disqualification under the anti-defection law. A merger plea failed for lack of factual basis, and a mistaken statutory reference in the order was treated as a clerical misdescription that did not affect legality.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Dec 2016 11:47:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=451825" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (12) TMI 1250 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188812</link>
      <description>Procedural defects in an anti-defection petition, including imperfect verification, irregular publication of Forms and Gazette material, or gaps in register maintenance, were treated as directory and evidentiary only, so they did not defeat proceedings where no prejudice was shown. On the substantive facts, election on the party ticket, formation of a separate group, voluntary giving up of party membership, and voting against a valid whip attracted disqualification under the anti-defection law. A merger plea failed for lack of factual basis, and a mistaken statutory reference in the order was treated as a clerical misdescription that did not affect legality.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188812</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>