Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.23 seconds)
Mohan Madan vs Sheel Gulati on 23 September, 2016 cites

K.Venkataramiah vs A. Seetharama Reddy & Ors on 12 February, 1963

In the decision reported as AIR 1963 SC 1526 K.Venkataramiah Vs. A.Seetharama Reddy & Ors. the facts were that the respondent therein, was elected to the Legislative Council of Andhra Pradesh having fulfilled the eligibility criteria for qualification including that of being above the age of 30 years on the date of the election as required under Article 173(b) of the Constitution. The appellant challenged the aforesaid election vide an election petition before the Election Tribunal, Hyderabad on the ground that the appellant was less than 30 years of age on the date of the impugned election and therefore his election was void. On a perusal of oral and documentary evidence adduced before it, the Election Tribunal rejected the appellant‟s documentary evidence by way of a birth register and entry therein as unreliable to establish the respondent‟s correct age. The Election Tribunal instead relied on documents of proceedings before the Judicial RFA (OS) No.116/2015 Page 7 of 11 Committee of the Privy Council to conclude that the respondent was indeed not less than 30 years of age on the date of the impugned election or nomination and his election to the Legislative Council of Andhra Pradesh was valid. In appeal, the High Court affirmed the decision of the Election Tribunal but opined that the Election Tribunal had erroneously failed to admit evidence of the respondent by way of birth registers and entries to establish the correct age of the respondent and thereafter allowed an application made under Order 41 Rule 27 by the respondent admitting additional evidence by way of documents as also cross-examination of persons to prove the said documents. In appeal before the Supreme Court, the appellant challenged the order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh primarily on the ground that the High Court had acted without jurisdiction by allowing additional evidence in concluding that the respondent, Seetharam Reddy, was 30 years of age on the date of the impugned election.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 297 - K C Gupta - Full Document

Arjan Singh Alias Puran vs Kartar Singh And Others on 2 March, 1951

The Supreme Court referred to an earlier decision reported as 1951 AIR 193 Arjan Singh vs Kartar Singh and opined that the Court‟s powers under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure to receive and admit additional evidence are discretionary that ought be exercised judicially. On the facts of the said case the Supreme Court noted that the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, upon consideration of evidence before it, had allowed additional evidence to be admitted opining that the same would assist them in establishing the respondent‟s correct age at the time of the impugned election. The Supreme Court opined that the need to allow additional evidence is a requirement of the High Court and rejected the contention that the question of the respondent‟s age was vitiated by reason of it being based on inadmissible evidence. The Supreme RFA (OS) No.116/2015 Page 8 of 11 Court thereby dismissed the appeal seeking declaration that the appellant‟s election to the Legislative Council of Andhra Pradesh was void. In paragraph 16 and 17 the Supreme Court while expanding upon order 41 Rule 27(1)(b) opined:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 209 - N C Aiyar - Full Document
1