Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.24 seconds)Article 173 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947
Article 243F in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 106 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Amrit Lal Ambalal Patel vs Himatbhai Gomanbhai Patel & Another on 3 May, 1968
24. Section 36(2) of the Representation of the People Act,
1951 castes a mandatory duty on the returning officer to
examine the nomination papers and take a decision on all
objections which may be made upon making an inquiry in that
behalf, which would include the question as to whether the
requirement of Article 173 has been fulfilled or not by the
candidate. The effect of the aforementioned provision is that a
candidate is not qualified unless he has attained the age
7
specified in the clause on the date fixed for scrutiny of
nomination. (See Amritlal Ambalal Patel v. Himatbhai
Gomanbhai Patel and another, 1969 (1) SCR 2777). AIR
1968 SC 1455
Durga Shankar Mehta vs Thakur Raghuraj Singh And Others on 19 May, 1954
25. It is beyond any cavil that in the event a person is elected
who does not fulfill the constitutional requirements, the election
would be void despite the fact that the returning officer has
accepted his nomination paper. (See Durga Shankar Mehta v.
Thakur Raghuraj Singh"
Birad Mal Singhvi vs Anand Purohit on 2 August, 1988
26. Such a question indisputably would fall for consideration
in an election petition where the parties would be entitled to
adduce evidence in support of their respective cases. (See Birad
Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit, 1988 Supp SCC 604). AIR
1988 SC 1798"
Orissa Mining Corporation Appellants ... vs Ananda Chandra Prusty on 5 November, 1996
31. Furthermore, in relation to certain matters, the fact being
within the special knowledge of the respondent, the burden to
prove the same would be on him in terms of Section 106 of the
Indian Evidence Act. However, the question as to whether the
burden to prove a particular matter is on the plaintiff or the
defendant would depend upon the nature of the dispute. (See
Orissa Mining Corporation and another v. Ananda Chandra
Prusty, AIR 1997 SC 2274). 1997 AIR SCW 2145
Cox & Kings (Agents) Ltd vs Their Workmen And Ors on 18 March, 1977
Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd., (1976) 3 SCC 32, (Para 14) and
M/s. Cox and Kings (Agents) Ltd. v. Their Workmen and others,
AIR 1977 SC 1666, (Para 36)). Furthermore, an admission on
the part of a party to the lis shall be binding on him and in any
event a presumption must be made that the same is taken to be
established. AIR 1976 SC 1414 1977 Lab IC 897
INSTITUTIONAL RECORDS/CERTIFICATES :