https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289722 An election petition challenge turned on whether the corrupt-practice allegations were supported by an affidavit in the prescribed form under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and whether the affidavit at pages 394-395 satisfied Form 25. The Court held that the objection before the High Court concerned the affidavit's form and content, not its filing with the petition, and that no conclusive earlier finding barred later clarification that two affidavits had been filed and that the relevant affidavit complied with the statutory requirement. It also held that a High Court rule could not override the jurisdictional scheme under Section 80A(2), so the clarification application was not confined to a Division Bench on that basis. The affidavit finding was sustained and the rule-based objection failed. en-us Tue, 15 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Aug 2020 22:37:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289722 An election petition challenge turned on whether the corrupt-practice allegations were supported by an affidavit in the prescribed form under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and whether the affidavit at pages 394-395 satisfied Form 25. The Court held that the objection before the High Court concerned the affidavit's form and content, not its filing with the petition, and that no conclusive earlier finding barred later clarification that two affidavits had been filed and that the relevant affidavit complied with the statutory requirement. It also held that a High Court rule could not override the jurisdictional scheme under Section 80A(2), so the clarification application was not confined to a Division Bench on that basis. The affidavit finding was sustained and the rule-based objection failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 15 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289722