https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306019 The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the rejection of Smt. Umrao Ben's nomination paper due to non-compliance with Section 33(5) of the Act. However, it found the rejection of Hukmichand and Suraj Prakash Joshi's nomination papers improper. The High Court's decision to set aside the election based on this rejection was deemed flawed as the evidence presented regarding the candidates' ages lacked probative value. The burden of proof was on the respondent to provide reliable evidence, which was not adequately done. en-us Tue, 02 Aug 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Jan 2023 16:29:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306019 The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the rejection of Smt. Umrao Ben's nomination paper due to non-compliance with Section 33(5) of the Act. However, it found the rejection of Hukmichand and Suraj Prakash Joshi's nomination papers improper. The High Court's decision to set aside the election based on this rejection was deemed flawed as the evidence presented regarding the candidates' ages lacked probative value. The burden of proof was on the respondent to provide reliable evidence, which was not adequately done. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 02 Aug 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306019