<?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>2011 (3) TMI 1755 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199927</link>
    <description>A society may maintain a representative challenge to an election process when it espouses a common member grievance, and Section 20 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 is not confined to the society&#039;s property claims; on that basis, maintainability was upheld. Mandatory voting directions were found to have been violated at two booths through ballot manipulation, lack of free voting, deficient identity verification and dual voting, amounting to tampering under the election rules; all votes in those booths were invalidated. In the absence of any express rule conferring such power, neither the Court nor the Returning Officer could order a re-poll, so the invalidation order remained operative for the affected booths only.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Mar 2018 12:40:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=512827" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (3) TMI 1755 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199927</link>
      <description>A society may maintain a representative challenge to an election process when it espouses a common member grievance, and Section 20 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 is not confined to the society&#039;s property claims; on that basis, maintainability was upheld. Mandatory voting directions were found to have been violated at two booths through ballot manipulation, lack of free voting, deficient identity verification and dual voting, amounting to tampering under the election rules; all votes in those booths were invalidated. In the absence of any express rule conferring such power, neither the Court nor the Returning Officer could order a re-poll, so the invalidation order remained operative for the affected booths only.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199927</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>