<?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>1959 (4) TMI 41 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292184</link>
    <description>Election disputes under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 are treated as matters of public character, and withdrawal is permitted only subject to statutory safeguards such as notice and possible substitution by an entitled person. The High Court&#039;s final order allowing withdrawal of the election appeal was treated as a &quot;decision of the High Court&quot; within the Act, including disposal otherwise than on merits. Because the statute made that decision final and conclusive and did not confer any power of review, the Court could not reopen the disposed appeal. The application to substitute and continue the appeal was therefore not maintainable and was rightly rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2020 12:04:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=629908" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1959 (4) TMI 41 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292184</link>
      <description>Election disputes under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 are treated as matters of public character, and withdrawal is permitted only subject to statutory safeguards such as notice and possible substitution by an entitled person. The High Court&#039;s final order allowing withdrawal of the election appeal was treated as a &quot;decision of the High Court&quot; within the Act, including disposal otherwise than on merits. Because the statute made that decision final and conclusive and did not confer any power of review, the Court could not reopen the disposed appeal. The application to substitute and continue the appeal was therefore not maintainable and was rightly rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292184</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>