<?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>2009 (8) TMI 1226 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195455</link>
    <description>An election petition under Section 81(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 must be presented personally by the candidate or elector, because the Act is a special self-contained code and its filing requirements are to be strictly construed. Presentation through an advocate alone, without the petitioner&#039;s presence before the authorised officer, does not satisfy the statutory mandate of filing the petition &quot;by&quot; the petitioner. The requirement supports preliminary verification and helps deter frivolous or vexatious election challenges. Decisions treating similar defects as substantial compliance were distinguished on the facts. The dismissal of the election petition was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Oct 2017 14:32:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=494132" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (8) TMI 1226 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195455</link>
      <description>An election petition under Section 81(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 must be presented personally by the candidate or elector, because the Act is a special self-contained code and its filing requirements are to be strictly construed. Presentation through an advocate alone, without the petitioner&#039;s presence before the authorised officer, does not satisfy the statutory mandate of filing the petition &quot;by&quot; the petitioner. The requirement supports preliminary verification and helps deter frivolous or vexatious election challenges. Decisions treating similar defects as substantial compliance were distinguished on the facts. The dismissal of the election petition was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195455</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>