https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272563 An election petition affidavit accompanying allegations of corrupt practice was challenged for not stating the source of information and grounds of belief. The Bombay HC held that Form 25 under Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 governs the affidavit and does not require such disclosure, unlike affidavits filed for interlocutory purposes under Order 19 Rule 3 CPC. Substantial compliance with the prescribed form was sufficient, and the absence of a specific requirement in the election-form affidavit did not make it defective. The Court also held that any defect under Section 83 did not, by itself, attract dismissal under Section 86. The petition was therefore not liable to dismissal on that ground. en-us Thu, 31 Aug 1972 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 May 2018 12:55:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272563 An election petition affidavit accompanying allegations of corrupt practice was challenged for not stating the source of information and grounds of belief. The Bombay HC held that Form 25 under Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 governs the affidavit and does not require such disclosure, unlike affidavits filed for interlocutory purposes under Order 19 Rule 3 CPC. Substantial compliance with the prescribed form was sufficient, and the absence of a specific requirement in the election-form affidavit did not make it defective. The Court also held that any defect under Section 83 did not, by itself, attract dismissal under Section 86. The petition was therefore not liable to dismissal on that ground. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 31 Aug 1972 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272563