<?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>1954 (4) TMI 54 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189592</link>
    <description>An election petition filed out of time but within the statutory framework could still be entertained where delay was condoned on sufficient cause and the verification defect was amended; the Election Commission&#039;s power to condone delay could be exercised without a formal application or personal appearance, and the Tribunal could decide whether to dismiss the petition but not review a valid condonation order. The Court also held that findings of corrupt practice would not be interfered with in appeal under article 136 unless perverse, and evidence supporting inducement to withdraw a candidate and use of a bus to convey voters was sufficient. The election petition therefore remained validly entertained and the disqualification was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sun, 25 Apr 1954 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2017 15:32:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=455271" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1954 (4) TMI 54 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189592</link>
      <description>An election petition filed out of time but within the statutory framework could still be entertained where delay was condoned on sufficient cause and the verification defect was amended; the Election Commission&#039;s power to condone delay could be exercised without a formal application or personal appearance, and the Tribunal could decide whether to dismiss the petition but not review a valid condonation order. The Court also held that findings of corrupt practice would not be interfered with in appeal under article 136 unless perverse, and evidence supporting inducement to withdraw a candidate and use of a bus to convey voters was sufficient. The election petition therefore remained validly entertained and the disqualification was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Sun, 25 Apr 1954 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189592</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>