<?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>2009 (9) TMI 1062 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300889</link>
    <description>An election petition alleging non-compliance with electoral procedure must plead material facts with specificity; bare or vague averments do not constitute a complete cause of action. Section 83(1)(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is mandatory, and omission of even one material fact renders the petition defective. Because the Code of Civil Procedure applies to election trials under Section 87, the court may invoke Order VI Rule 16 and Order VII Rule 11 where the petition discloses no complete cause of action. The petition here remained vague and did not explain how the election result was materially affected, so it was rightly rejected at the threshold.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Mar 2022 11:59:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=671709" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (9) TMI 1062 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300889</link>
      <description>An election petition alleging non-compliance with electoral procedure must plead material facts with specificity; bare or vague averments do not constitute a complete cause of action. Section 83(1)(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is mandatory, and omission of even one material fact renders the petition defective. Because the Code of Civil Procedure applies to election trials under Section 87, the court may invoke Order VI Rule 16 and Order VII Rule 11 where the petition discloses no complete cause of action. The petition here remained vague and did not explain how the election result was materially affected, so it was rightly rejected at the threshold.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300889</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>