<?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>2024 (10) TMI 1695 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463145</link>
    <description>A second application seeking suspension of conviction was treated as not maintainable because the earlier refusal had attained finality and no new circumstance or change in law was shown; the bar of res judicata applied. The text notes that stay of conviction is an exceptional remedy, granted only in rare cases after weighing the consequences of disqualification under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. It further distinguishes situations involving a sitting elected representative facing a representative vacuum from the applicant&#039;s position, where no comparable electoral exigency existed. The relief was therefore declined.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Aug 2025 20:58:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=842011" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (10) TMI 1695 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463145</link>
      <description>A second application seeking suspension of conviction was treated as not maintainable because the earlier refusal had attained finality and no new circumstance or change in law was shown; the bar of res judicata applied. The text notes that stay of conviction is an exceptional remedy, granted only in rare cases after weighing the consequences of disqualification under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. It further distinguishes situations involving a sitting elected representative facing a representative vacuum from the applicant&#039;s position, where no comparable electoral exigency existed. The relief was therefore declined.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463145</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>