<?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>1991 (1) TMI 446 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198196</link>
    <description>A copy of an election petition served on the returned candidate must be a faithful and complete copy of the composite pleading, including the supporting affidavit in a corrupt practice case, under Sections 81, 83 and 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. Omission of the notary&#039;s endorsement, designation and stamped affirmation was treated as a material defect because it deprived the respondent of knowing whether and how the affidavit was sworn. The defect was not regarded as a mere clerical or typographical error, and substantial compliance could not be inferred; the copy was therefore not a true copy within Section 81(3).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Jan 2018 18:33:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=506000" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (1) TMI 446 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198196</link>
      <description>A copy of an election petition served on the returned candidate must be a faithful and complete copy of the composite pleading, including the supporting affidavit in a corrupt practice case, under Sections 81, 83 and 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. Omission of the notary&#039;s endorsement, designation and stamped affirmation was treated as a material defect because it deprived the respondent of knowing whether and how the affidavit was sworn. The defect was not regarded as a mere clerical or typographical error, and substantial compliance could not be inferred; the copy was therefore not a true copy within Section 81(3).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198196</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>