Search Results for "Mysore Village Panchayats Act"

Trending :

Bombay High Court Allows Appeals by Acquiring Body in Land Acquisition Compensat...
Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Disput...
Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Concurrent Findings in Sui...
Supreme Court Upholds Refusal to Eschew Proof Affidavit in Probate Proceedings. ...
Supreme Court Allows Agriculturists' Appeal for Enhanced Compensation; Condones ...

Search Results for "Mysore Village Panchayats Act"

59 result(s) found

Home Search Results

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 59 result(s)

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Petition of Directly Elected Sarpanch Challenging No-Confidence Motion — Motion by Gram Sabha Invalid Under Section 35 of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958. Directly Elected Sarpanch Under Section 30A-1A Cannot Be Removed by Gram Sabha; Only Voters Who Elected Him Can Pass No-Confidence Motion.

12 Jan 2022

The petitioner, Amol Pandurang Godbole, was directly elected as Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Balirampur in the 2017 general election, a post reserved...

High Court

KAHC010306442014_1

10 Mar 2016

...

High Court

High Court of Karnataka Quashes No-Confidence Motion Notice Against Gram Panchayat President Due to Non-Compliance with Mandatory Procedure Under Section 49(2) of Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. Motion signed by only 9 members instead of the required 10, and notice period of 15 days not provided.

28 Sep 2018

The petitioner, Smt. Roopa, was the President of Honnenahalli Gram Panchayat. The respondents 5 to 14, who were members of the Panchayat, moved a no-c...

High Court

KAHC010341872013_1

6 Jan 2014

...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals Against Demolition of Commercial Structures in Protected Area of Virupapura Gaddi, Hampi. Constructions in Protected Area Declared Under Mysore Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1961 Are Illegal and Subject to Demolition by Hampi World Heritage Area Management Authority.

11 Feb 2020

The Supreme Court dismissed a batch of appeals filed by owners of restaurants, guest houses, and other commercial establishments in Virupapura Gaddi, ...

High Court

Karnataka High Court Writ Petition Involving Zilla Panchayat Office Bearers. Multiple Individuals Filed Petition Against State Authorities Relating to Panchayat Raj Elections.

6 Jan 2017

...

High Court

High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Writ Petitions Challenging Gram Panchayat's Property Tax Levy on Industrial Units in KIADB Area — Property Tax Under Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 Is Valid Despite KIADB Land Ownership.

1 Jul 2025

The judgment involves a batch of writ petitions filed by various industrial units located in the Sompura Industrial Area, developed by the Karnataka I...

High Court

Bombay High Court Quashes Collector's Order Invalidating No-Confidence Motion Against Sarpanch in Gram Panchayat Dispute. Rules Under Bombay Village Panchayats Act Held Directory, Not Mandatory, and Substantial Compliance Sufficient.

7 Nov 2023

The petitioner, Prajakta Prabhakar Kadu, the Up-Sarpanch of Gram-Panchayat Shedsai, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of Ind...

High Court

High Court of Karnataka Quashes Notice for No-Confidence Motion Against Grama Panchayat President Due to Non-Compliance with Mandatory 15-Day Notice Period Under Section 49(2A) of Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. The court held that the notice period is mandatory, not directory, and quashed the notice that provided only 7 days instead of the required 15 days.

11 Sep 2019

The judgment pertains to three writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging notices for no-confidence mot...

High Court

High Court of Judicature at Bombay Upholds No-Confidence Motion Against Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch; Meeting Convened Within Two Days Valid Under 1975 Rules. Special meeting for no-confidence motion under Section 35 of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act and the 1975 Rules does not require three clear days' notice as per Rule 4 of Meetings Rules 1959, and meeting held within seven days is sufficient.

2 Jul 2018

The dispute arose from a no-confidence motion passed against the Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Kawalgaon, Taluka Degloor, District Nan...

1 2 3

Full Name * Username * Mobile Number * Email Address * State/UT * City * Password * Confirm Password * Referral Code (Optional)