<?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>1953 (11) TMI 31 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298232</link>
    <description>Where an election petition alleges corrupt or illegal practice, the Tribunal must record mandatory findings on the statutory issues raised; failure to decide whether the alleged helper acted as a candidate&#039;s agent or whether there was ratification, and whether election expenditure breached the relevant provision, is a jurisdictional omission requiring remand for fresh consideration. The objection to ballot papers attested by allegedly unauthorised persons failed because the Tribunal found no proof that those persons had done election work for the candidate or that the documents had been countersigned by them, so the challenge lacked substance and was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 1953 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Oct 2021 14:54:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=659089" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1953 (11) TMI 31 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298232</link>
      <description>Where an election petition alleges corrupt or illegal practice, the Tribunal must record mandatory findings on the statutory issues raised; failure to decide whether the alleged helper acted as a candidate&#039;s agent or whether there was ratification, and whether election expenditure breached the relevant provision, is a jurisdictional omission requiring remand for fresh consideration. The objection to ballot papers attested by allegedly unauthorised persons failed because the Tribunal found no proof that those persons had done election work for the candidate or that the documents had been countersigned by them, so the challenge lacked substance and was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 1953 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298232</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>