Search Results for "village panchayat"

1821 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 1821 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Seizure of Gum by Forest Officials — Transit Passes Valid and Seizure Without Authority Under Forest Act. Petitioner had valid contract and transit passes for gum collection; seizure at destination without proper authority held illegal.

The petitioner, Arjun Ratansing Jadhav, was the highest bidder in an auction for collection of gum from Chalisgaon forest area for the period 26.11.20...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Acquits Appellants in Gang Rape Case Due to Lack of Corroboration and Inconsistent Testimony. Conviction under Section 376D IPC set aside as prosecutrix's testimony was uncorroborated and medical evidence did not support rape.

The appellants, Rohidas Manik Chavhan and Pravin Pundlik Rathod, were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Darwha, in Special Case No.4/2015 fo...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Writ Petition Nos.4936, 6015, 6514 & 6795 of 2025 &

...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Adjudicates Writ Petitions Challenging Review of Forest Rights Grant Under Scheduled Tribes Act. Petitions Involve Denial of Hakku Patra and Compensation for Land Acquired for Irrigation Project.

The petitioner, belonging to a Scheduled Tribe, claimed ancestral occupation of RS No. 154 in Siddhanahalli Village, Belagavi, and sought allocation o...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Acquits Appellant in POCSO and Rape Case Due to Inconsistent Victim Testimony and Lack of Corroboration. Conviction under Sections 363, 376, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(a)/4, 5(i),(j)(ii),(l)/6 POCSO Act set aside as prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The appellant, Sameer Shashikant Jadhav, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri, in Special Case No.19/2018 for offences under Sect...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging No Confidence Motion Against Sarpanch Under Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act. Court Holds That Removal of Sarpanch by No Confidence Motion Does Not Require Prior Notice or Opportunity of Hearing Under Section 55(2A) of the Act.

The petitioner, Bharat Vitthal Shete, was the Sarpanch of Grampanchayat Pimpalgaon Khand. A no confidence motion was moved against him by respondent N...