<?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>1973 (11) TMI 96 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280189</link>
    <description>A person requested to sit and act as a High Court Judge under Article 224A has, during that request, the jurisdiction, powers and privileges of a High Court Judge and may try an election petition under Section 80A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Section 80A vests jurisdiction in the High Court and does not restrict such a requested Judge from exercising it. The Chief Justice may also reassign an election petition from one Judge to another where no statutory prohibition applies; an initial assignment creates no entitlement to continue before the same Judge. The jurisdictional challenge failed, although the petition was directed to be heard by a permanent Judge on the special facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Nov 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2019 14:34:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=568229" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1973 (11) TMI 96 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280189</link>
      <description>A person requested to sit and act as a High Court Judge under Article 224A has, during that request, the jurisdiction, powers and privileges of a High Court Judge and may try an election petition under Section 80A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Section 80A vests jurisdiction in the High Court and does not restrict such a requested Judge from exercising it. The Chief Justice may also reassign an election petition from one Judge to another where no statutory prohibition applies; an initial assignment creates no entitlement to continue before the same Judge. The jurisdictional challenge failed, although the petition was directed to be heard by a permanent Judge on the special facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Nov 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280189</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>