<?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>1958 (5) TMI 59 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305850</link>
    <description>Election-law bribery was construed narrowly: a candidate&#039;s receipt of a bribe to withdraw from contest was not treated as a corrupt-practice allegation against him for necessary-party purposes. Election-expense violations were confined to expenditure beyond the statutory ceiling; gratuitous use of borrowed vehicles and a false or imperfect return did not, by themselves, amount to corrupt practice. Allegations of assistance from Government servants failed for want of proof, but repeated transport of voters by mechanically propelled vehicles could support an inference of implied consent by the returned candidate, and such implied consent was sufficient to attract the statutory ground for voiding the election. A defamatory pamphlet allegation also failed for lack of proof connecting the returned candidate to its publication or distribution.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 May 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Dec 2022 18:14:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=699948" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1958 (5) TMI 59 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305850</link>
      <description>Election-law bribery was construed narrowly: a candidate&#039;s receipt of a bribe to withdraw from contest was not treated as a corrupt-practice allegation against him for necessary-party purposes. Election-expense violations were confined to expenditure beyond the statutory ceiling; gratuitous use of borrowed vehicles and a false or imperfect return did not, by themselves, amount to corrupt practice. Allegations of assistance from Government servants failed for want of proof, but repeated transport of voters by mechanically propelled vehicles could support an inference of implied consent by the returned candidate, and such implied consent was sufficient to attract the statutory ground for voiding the election. A defamatory pamphlet allegation also failed for lack of proof connecting the returned candidate to its publication or distribution.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 May 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305850</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>