Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.46 seconds)
Sat Narain Fatech Chand vs Hardayal Singh And Ors. on 11 February, 1965 cites

Lekh Raj vs The Cantonment Board, Jullundur ... on 12 November, 1957

To Lajpat Raj's case ILR (1960) 2 Punj 192 and to Lakh Raj's case, AIR 1958 Punj 356 Shri Gupta has also made a specific reference before us. The electoral roll it has been strongly urged must be held final and unassailable in the election petitioners. It is on improper reception or refusal of a vote which according to the argument can form the subject matter of enquiry and not the allegedly wrong entries in the electoral roll.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 7 - A N Grover - Full Document

Keshab Govind Kulkarni vs Extra Assistant Judge, Sourth Satara ... on 17 March, 1959

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.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Ghulam Mohiuddin vs Election Tribunal For Town Area Sakit ... on 14 November, 1958

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.
Allahabad High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 15 - R Dayal - Full Document

T. Prem Sagar vs The Standard Vacuum Oil Companymadras ... on 16 December, 1963

These observations point out that what the writ Court had better not do is to make its own findings on the evidence and pass its own order in that behalf in other words not to convert itself into a Court of appeal or revision. That these observations are confined within these narrow limits of the High Court clearly considering the limits of the High Court jurisdiction in issuing a writ of certiorari in respect of orders like the on pronounced by the Commissioner of Labour in that case. The provisions of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act were before the Court and it was in this context that keeping in view section 51 of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act stress was laid that the writ Court should not make its own findings on the evidence and pass its own order in that behalf. I may point out at this stage that the formulation of a rule in a judicial decision is invariably embedded in the rest of the judgment and the entire context must be taken into account to discern the Court intended meaning rather than take the formulation is isolation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 35 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Jumuna Prasad Mukhariya And Others vs Lachhi Ram And Others on 28 September, 1954

A passing reference has also been made to S. 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 by way of analogy an d assistance has been sought from the decision of the Supreme Court in Jamuna Prasad v. Lachhi Ram, AIR 1954 S C 686 and Vashit Narain Sharam v. Dev Chandra AIR 1954 SC 513. It has been laid down in the first case that before the Tribunal acting under S. 100(1)(b) could declare a person to be duly elected it must be proved that but for the votes obtained by the returned candidate would have obtained a majority of valid votes.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 72 - V Bose - Full Document

N. T. Veluswami Thevar vs G. Raja Nainar And Others on 24 November, 1958

The learned counsel has indeed gone to the length of submitting that the view taken by the Bombay and Allahabad decision cited above is wrong in law. According to him nine person below 21 years of age having been found to have cast their votes an enquiry must now be held by the Election Commissioner as to for whom those person in fact voted and then to count all the votes and see as to which candidate can be considered to have been validly elected. Strong reliance has been placed on the fact that names of these nine minor persons have been given in the petition as to for whom these person to allege in the petitioners as to for whom these persons had voted in wholly immaterial and it would be incumbent on the Election Commissioner himself to hold an enquiry and then come to his conclusion. He has also cited Veluswami Thevar v. Raja Nainar AIR 1959 S C 42 which is an authority for the proposition that in an election petitioners under the Representation of the People Act challenging an order of the Returning Officer rejecting a nomination paper it is open to the parties to raise grounds of disqualification other than those urged before the Returning Officer.
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 280 - Full Document

Syed Yakoob vs K.S. Radhakrishnan & Others on 7 October, 1963

The observation s reproduced have not laid down any new rule of law for the first time. They merely reiterated that the functions of a writ Court cannot be equated with those of an appellate or revisions Court and therefore the findings of fact reached by the inferior Court as a result of appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. This accept had earlier been classified by Gajendragadkar J. (as he then was) speaking for the Court in Yakoob v Radhakrishnan AIR 1964 SC 477 as also in State of Orissa v. Murlidhar Jana AIR 1963, SC 404, Reference to the observations of the Court at p. 412 in Nagendra Nath v. Commissioner of Hills Division AIR 1958, SC 393, is in my opinion also instructive any finding on the evidence on the record after holding that on the pleading the Election Commissioner could not in law go into the question in which he has gone or to open the envelope of votes for the purpose of finding out that substantial number of minor voters had case their votes in favour of Sat Narain. Such enquiry is not at all called for on the existing pleadings. The jurisdiction of the Election Commissioner it must never be forgotten is strictly confined within the narrow limits prescribed by the relevant statute. On the record of this case the impugned order must be held to be tainted with serious legal infirmities as discussed above and must be quashed. and nothing more remains to be done for said. There is clearly no occasion for remitting the case back to the Election Tribunal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 1424 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

State Of Orissa & Anr vs Murlidhar Jena on 8 August, 1961

The observation s reproduced have not laid down any new rule of law for the first time. They merely reiterated that the functions of a writ Court cannot be equated with those of an appellate or revisions Court and therefore the findings of fact reached by the inferior Court as a result of appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. This accept had earlier been classified by Gajendragadkar J. (as he then was) speaking for the Court in Yakoob v Radhakrishnan AIR 1964 SC 477 as also in State of Orissa v. Murlidhar Jana AIR 1963, SC 404, Reference to the observations of the Court at p. 412 in Nagendra Nath v. Commissioner of Hills Division AIR 1958, SC 393, is in my opinion also instructive any finding on the evidence on the record after holding that on the pleading the Election Commissioner could not in law go into the question in which he has gone or to open the envelope of votes for the purpose of finding out that substantial number of minor voters had case their votes in favour of Sat Narain. Such enquiry is not at all called for on the existing pleadings. The jurisdiction of the Election Commissioner it must never be forgotten is strictly confined within the narrow limits prescribed by the relevant statute. On the record of this case the impugned order must be held to be tainted with serious legal infirmities as discussed above and must be quashed. and nothing more remains to be done for said. There is clearly no occasion for remitting the case back to the Election Tribunal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 64 - Full Document

Nagendra Nath Bora & Another vs The Commissioner Of Hills Divisionand ... on 7 February, 1958

The observation s reproduced have not laid down any new rule of law for the first time. They merely reiterated that the functions of a writ Court cannot be equated with those of an appellate or revisions Court and therefore the findings of fact reached by the inferior Court as a result of appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. This accept had earlier been classified by Gajendragadkar J. (as he then was) speaking for the Court in Yakoob v Radhakrishnan AIR 1964 SC 477 as also in State of Orissa v. Murlidhar Jana AIR 1963, SC 404, Reference to the observations of the Court at p. 412 in Nagendra Nath v. Commissioner of Hills Division AIR 1958, SC 393, is in my opinion also instructive any finding on the evidence on the record after holding that on the pleading the Election Commissioner could not in law go into the question in which he has gone or to open the envelope of votes for the purpose of finding out that substantial number of minor voters had case their votes in favour of Sat Narain. Such enquiry is not at all called for on the existing pleadings. The jurisdiction of the Election Commissioner it must never be forgotten is strictly confined within the narrow limits prescribed by the relevant statute. On the record of this case the impugned order must be held to be tainted with serious legal infirmities as discussed above and must be quashed. and nothing more remains to be done for said. There is clearly no occasion for remitting the case back to the Election Tribunal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 746 - B P Sinha - Full Document
1