Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.83 seconds)
Documents citing Roop Lal Mehta vs Dhan Singh And Ors. on 17 May, 1967

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

R. Chandran vs M. V. Marappan on 23 April, 1973

The decisions of the Madras, Andhra and Kerala High Courts, already referred to, should be held to be erroneous and that of the Gujarat High Court in Mahmadhusein v. O. Fidaali(1), Allahabad Court in Ghulam Mohiuddin v. Election Tribunal(2) , Bombay High-Court in Jagannath v. Sukhdeo(3), and Punjab and Haryana High Court in Roop Lal Mehta v. Dhan Singh (supra) as correct. In this case, therefore, it was not open either for the Election Tribunal or for the High Court to go into the question regarding the appellant's age. The latest decision of Kailasam.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 8 - A Alagiriswami - Full Document

P. Subramaniam vs S. Pachamuthu And Ors. on 19 January, 1972

12. N.C. Raghavachari, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that he Supreme Court in Pampakavi Rayappa Balagali V. B.D. Jatti referred to and approved the decision in Roop Lal Mehta v. Dhan Singh A.I.R. 1968 Punj. 1 (F.B.)which related to the question whether a person, whose name was found in the electoral roll, could be disqualified on the ground that he had not attained iheageof2i. This case can be decided on the basis that there is no provision in 1 he Panchayat Act, which corresponds lo Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act. On the. other hand, Section 20(5) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1958, provides that every person whose name appears in the elec-1 oral roll for the panchayat shall, so long as it remains in force and subject to any revision thereof which might have taken place and subject also to the other provisions of this Act, be entitled to vote at an election. As already stated, disqualification can only be subject to two conditions, namely, subject to any revision of the electoral roll which might have taken place and subject to the other provisions of that Act. The other provisions which enable the Tribunal to disqualify a person do not include the ground of a person not having attained the age of 21. In this view I am satisfied that the Tribunal is not entitled to go into the question as to whether a person, whose name has been included, should be disqualified on the ground that he has not attained the age of 21.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 3 - P S Kailasam - Full Document

Bhagwan Dass Singla vs Harchand Singh And Anr. on 8 September, 1969

12-15. Thus it would appear from the above authorities that moment the name of a person appears in an electoral roll, a conclusive presumption arises that he is an elector and is necessarily above the age of twenty-one years. Therefore, the entry in the electoral roll, that the age of the elector is twenty years, is really pointless. In fact, no value can be attached to such an entry. See in this connection the Full Bench decision of this Court in Roop Lal Mehta v. Dhan Singh, (1967) 69 Pun LR 618 = (AIR 1968 Punj 1 (FB) ) wherein it was held as follows :-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

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

The 1950 Act concerns itself with the preparation of the electoral roll etc., whereas the 1951 Act primarily concerns itself with the conduct of elections. While judging the validity of a vote, we are mainly concerned with the conduct of elections and not with the preparations of the electoral roll. It is for this reason that I see no difference in this case and the case of Roop Lal Mehta, 69 Pun LR 618= (AIR 1968 Punj 1 FB). On principle, Roop Lal Mehta's case, 69 Pun LR 618 = (AIR 1968 Punj 1 FB), must govern the present case.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next