Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.54 seconds)
Documents citing Ghulam Mohiuddin vs Election Tribunal For Town Area Sakit ... on 14 November, 1958

Duvvuru Madhusudhan Reddy vs The Election Court And Anr. on 16 January, 1991

M. Krisna Rao, J., held referring to Goverdhan Reddy's case (6 supra) that he was inclined to hold that it made no difference whether the dispute related to the age of a candidate or a voter and that the same principle should be applied even to the case of a voter who was proved to be below the age of 21 years, Kuppuswamy, J., also disagreed with the views of the Full Bench decisions in Roop lal Mehta v. Dhan Singh (11 supra) and Ghulam Mohiuddin v. Election Tribunal (9 supra) and the view of the Gujarat High Court in Mahmadhusein v. O. Fidaali (8 supra).
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 23 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Mahmadhusein Kurbanhusein ... vs Onali Fidaali And Ors. on 6 November, 1968

16. Mr. Surti rightly relied upon the decision of the Full Bench of the Punjab High Court in Roop Lal Mehta v. Dhan Singh, AIR 1968 Punj 1 (FB) and of the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in Ghulam Mohiuddin v. Election Tribunal for Town Area Sakit AIR 1959 All 357 (FB) which treat the voters' list in such cases as conclusive and do not permit the Election Tribunal to hold an inquiry on the question of minimum age as required under Article 326 of the Constitution. These decisions are in line with the view taken by our Division Bench.
Gujarat High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Sultan Khan vs Sailesh Chandra Nundy on 27 November, 1962

8. The entry of the name of any person as a voter in the electoral roll so prepared and maintained is proof of the title of the person to vote at the election nevertheless the electoral roll is not regarded as conclusive in cases of any person who is prohibited from voting by the Constitution or any statute or common law. See in this connection the observation of B. K. Mukherjea J. in Durga Shankar Mehta v. Raghuram Singh, and see also Ghulam Mohiuddin v. Election Tribunal, . The vote cast by such a person is not lawful and is liable to be disallowed on a scrutiny. The election tribunal can enquire into and consider the question whether a person is prohibited from voting, notwithstanding the fact the name of such a person is entered in the electoral roll.
Calcutta High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 2 - R S Bachawat - Full Document

Sat Narain Fatech Chand vs Hardayal Singh And Ors. on 11 February, 1965

Our attention has further been drawn to Keshav Govind v. Extra Assistant Judge South Satara AIR 1960 Bom 127 and Ghulam Mohiddin v. Election Tribunal for Town Area Sakit, Air 1959 All 357. The Full Bench decision in relied on by the Election come has been sought to be distinguished on facts as also on the ground that the reported case related to the Representation of the People Act and it is therefore of little assistance in the present case.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - I D Dua - Full Document

Kundan Singh vs Kabul Singh And Ors. on 6 February, 1969

20. It needs to be noted that Mr. Sarhadi in support of the result contended for by him placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Ghulam Mohiuddin v. Election Tribunal, AIR 1959 all 357. There are some passages in this judgment which no doubt tend to reinforce the submissions of the respondents counsel, especially in the observation of Raghubar Dayal J., that:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chintham Ramakotamma vs Narella Anjamma And Ors. on 6 July, 1971

15. The observation made in the earlier decision occurred no doubt, in a case decided before the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in . But the decision of a later Full Bench of this court affirmed the ratio of the earlier decision and this was done in the light of the observations of the Supreme Court in . In view of the two pronouncements by two different Full Benches of this court, it is clear that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has to be rejected. He invited attention to the decisions of the Punjab and Allahabad High Courts in Roop Lal Metha v. Dhan Singhs, (FB), and Ghula, Mohiuddin v. Election Tribunal for Town Area Sakit, (FB). Both the decisions are decisions of Full Benches of the respective courts. The view taken by this court is different and I am bound by the decision of this court. I am also unable to endorse the plea of the counsel that a case is made out for a further examination of the question by a larger Bench.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Addigiri Vengamumi vs Chukkalooru Narayanappa And Anr. on 25 July, 1969

In Ghulam Mohinuddin v. Election Tribunal, (FB) the majority view proceeded on the footing that the electoral roll by itself constitutes the source of the right of vote and that it cannot be regarded as void even though the person, a minor, had no right to vote at all under law. The dissenting judgment, if I may say so with respect, brought out the real distinction in the following terms:
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 53 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Chirala Goverdhanareddy And Anr. vs Election Tribunal, Bapatla And Ors. on 27 December, 1967

24. What is more, when two earlier decisions of this Court including the one in (1960) 2 Andh WR 308, were relied on before them, their Lordships distinguished them by saying that the said two decisions "afford no paralled to the instant case. Those two cases dealt with the disqualification of a candidate. They were not cases of persons below the age of 21 casting their votes. The question in both the cases was whether a candidate was qualified to stand for election to the Village Panchayat in one case and to the Municipal Council in the other. It was laid down in both the cases that a person below the age of 21 was not competent to stand as a candidate and the election of such a candidate was contrary to law. The qualifications requisite for a candidate have relation to the election process. Hence those two decisions cannot give us much assistance in the context of the present enquiry."
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 27 - Cited by 3 - P J Reddy - Full Document

Smt. Satvinder Kaur vs The Director Of Gurudwara Election And ... on 10 January, 2007

In Ghulam Mohiuddin v. Election tribunal for Town area Sakit Raghubar Dayal, J (as His Lordship then was expressed the majority opinion by holding that a person's non residence for the prescribed period or not attaining the age of 21 years is not his disqualification for registration but amounts to his being not qualified to be registered; so long as one is not qualified no question of disqualification arises. A vote is not unlawful merely on account of the fact that the person had no right to have his name entered in the electoral roll. Mr. M.L. Chaturvedi, J agreeing with Raghubar Dayal, J held that the electoral roll is to be deemed final and conclusive as far as the fulfillment of qualification of a voter is concerned but it is not to be deemed final and conclusive by the Election Tribunal so far as the disqualifications attaching to such person are concerned. Chaturvedi, J. noticed the well settled practice in England having been adopted in the Representation of the People Act and held that an entry in the electoral roll has to be taken to be conclusive proof of the fact that the person fulfills the requisitive conditions as to age and residence in the constituency; finality has been given to the decision of the officer preparing the roll insofar as the fulfillment of conditions of registration is concerned but it has not been considered desirable to extend the same finality to the decision on the subject of disqualifications the latter is a more serious matter.
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - S K Kaul - Full Document
1   2 Next