<?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>1985 (5) TMI 256 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287581</link>
    <description>Expenditure independently incurred by a political party, association, body of persons, or other third person is outside the candidate&#039;s election expenditure return under Section 77(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, because the provision applies only to expenditure incurred or authorised by the candidate or election agent. The classification was held to have a reasonable nexus with that object and did not violate Article 14 merely because parties differ in financial strength. The Court also treated the provision as consistent with the statutory scheme on election expenditure and free and fair elections, while noting it would not protect routing of a candidate&#039;s own funds through a facade. The constitutional challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 May 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2020 14:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=610770" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (5) TMI 256 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287581</link>
      <description>Expenditure independently incurred by a political party, association, body of persons, or other third person is outside the candidate&#039;s election expenditure return under Section 77(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, because the provision applies only to expenditure incurred or authorised by the candidate or election agent. The classification was held to have a reasonable nexus with that object and did not violate Article 14 merely because parties differ in financial strength. The Court also treated the provision as consistent with the statutory scheme on election expenditure and free and fair elections, while noting it would not protect routing of a candidate&#039;s own funds through a facade. The constitutional challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 May 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287581</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>