<?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>1995 (12) TMI 398 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194453</link>
    <description>Section 10 of the General Clauses Act applies to an election petition filed on the next working day after the last day of limitation, where the court was closed and the statutory context does not exclude that rule. Failure to supply video cassettes or transcripts with the served copy did not amount to non-compliance with section 81(3) where the petition served was identical to the petition filed, and any pleading deficiency fell under section 83(1) rather than section 86(1). Corrupt practice was not made out because the pleadings lacked the necessary constituent facts and consent, and the alleged statement was treated as a political expression, not an appeal on religious grounds. Findings against persons other than the returned candidate also required notice under section 99; the absence of such notice vitiated that part of the order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Sep 2017 11:00:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=488627" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (12) TMI 398 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194453</link>
      <description>Section 10 of the General Clauses Act applies to an election petition filed on the next working day after the last day of limitation, where the court was closed and the statutory context does not exclude that rule. Failure to supply video cassettes or transcripts with the served copy did not amount to non-compliance with section 81(3) where the petition served was identical to the petition filed, and any pleading deficiency fell under section 83(1) rather than section 86(1). Corrupt practice was not made out because the pleadings lacked the necessary constituent facts and consent, and the alleged statement was treated as a political expression, not an appeal on religious grounds. Findings against persons other than the returned candidate also required notice under section 99; the absence of such notice vitiated that part of the order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194453</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>