<?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>1993 (8) TMI 304 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190115</link>
    <description>A consent order in writ proceedings secured by collusion and fraud, and used to defeat the statutory election scheme, was treated as a nullity and liable to correction by the Court rather than as a valid basis for conducting the election. The Court also held that a voters&#039; list validly finalised and published before postponement of the election continued to govern that election; a fresh provisional list based on a later date could not be insisted upon where the earlier list had already been prepared in accordance with the applicable rule and remained unchallenged. The later list was therefore illegal, and the election process conducted on that basis was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Aug 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2017 18:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=457686" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (8) TMI 304 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190115</link>
      <description>A consent order in writ proceedings secured by collusion and fraud, and used to defeat the statutory election scheme, was treated as a nullity and liable to correction by the Court rather than as a valid basis for conducting the election. The Court also held that a voters&#039; list validly finalised and published before postponement of the election continued to govern that election; a fresh provisional list based on a later date could not be insisted upon where the earlier list had already been prepared in accordance with the applicable rule and remained unchallenged. The later list was therefore illegal, and the election process conducted on that basis was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Aug 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190115</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>