<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1987 (12) TMI 338 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279563</link>
    <description>Age qualification for nomination was upheld because the election record, electoral roll and oral evidence showed the candidate had completed twenty-five years on the scrutiny date. A ferry toll lease under the Ferries Act was held not to be a disqualifying contract under Section 9-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, because it was a business arrangement to collect tolls and not a contract for supply of goods or execution of governmental works. The lessee also was not treated as holding an office of profit under the State Government, since the arrangement remained contractual and did not create a public office. The rejection of the nomination on these grounds was therefore unjustified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Dec 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Mar 2019 16:50:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=564090" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (12) TMI 338 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279563</link>
      <description>Age qualification for nomination was upheld because the election record, electoral roll and oral evidence showed the candidate had completed twenty-five years on the scrutiny date. A ferry toll lease under the Ferries Act was held not to be a disqualifying contract under Section 9-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, because it was a business arrangement to collect tolls and not a contract for supply of goods or execution of governmental works. The lessee also was not treated as holding an office of profit under the State Government, since the arrangement remained contractual and did not create a public office. The rejection of the nomination on these grounds was therefore unjustified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Dec 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279563</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>