https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301642 In election petitions, a copy of the affidavit served on the returned candidate need not be an exact reproduction if it substantially reproduces the original and does not omit a material feature likely to mislead. The Supreme Court treated an earlier ruling on true copies of affidavits as confined to its own facts, because the defect there was materially different. On the present facts, omission of the notary's name, seal and stamp was held inconsequential where the copy still showed affirmation, signature and verification before a notary, and Annexure XV matched the original. Substantial compliance with Section 81(3) was therefore accepted and dismissal under Section 86(1) was not warranted. en-us Thu, 15 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Apr 2022 11:55:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301642 In election petitions, a copy of the affidavit served on the returned candidate need not be an exact reproduction if it substantially reproduces the original and does not omit a material feature likely to mislead. The Supreme Court treated an earlier ruling on true copies of affidavits as confined to its own facts, because the defect there was materially different. On the present facts, omission of the notary's name, seal and stamp was held inconsequential where the copy still showed affirmation, signature and verification before a notary, and Annexure XV matched the original. Substantial compliance with Section 81(3) was therefore accepted and dismissal under Section 86(1) was not warranted. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 15 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301642