https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196735 The Supreme Court upheld the Karnataka High Court's decision in an Election Petition appeal, finding compliance with Section 117 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The issue centered on the mandatory security deposit requirement, with the appellant arguing non-compliance due to the deposit being made by a different individual. However, the High Court determined that the Election Petitioner had indeed made the deposit, meeting the Act's provisions. Relying on precedents, the Supreme Court clarified that while the deposit is mandatory, the mode of deposit is flexible as long as it is made at the time of filing. The appeal was dismissed, affirming compliance with the law. en-us Tue, 04 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Dec 2017 11:29:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196735 The Supreme Court upheld the Karnataka High Court's decision in an Election Petition appeal, finding compliance with Section 117 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The issue centered on the mandatory security deposit requirement, with the appellant arguing non-compliance due to the deposit being made by a different individual. However, the High Court determined that the Election Petitioner had indeed made the deposit, meeting the Act's provisions. Relying on precedents, the Supreme Court clarified that while the deposit is mandatory, the mode of deposit is flexible as long as it is made at the time of filing. The appeal was dismissed, affirming compliance with the law. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 04 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196735