Search Results for "No-confidence motion"

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 Hears Appeals Against Madras High Court’s Setting Aside of Alien...
Supreme Court Hears Appeals on Permanent Establishment of Formula One World Cham...

Search Results for "No-confidence motion"

102 result(s) found

Home Search Results

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 102 result(s)

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petitions Challenging No-Confidence Motion Against Sarpanch and Deputy Sarpanch Under Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act — Procedural Irregularities in Notice Period and Meeting Conduct Render Motion Invalid. The court held that the mandatory 15-day notice period under Section 35 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 was not complied with, and the meeting was not conducted properly, thus quashing the no-confidence motion.

8 Nov 2019

The petitioners, Indraraj Babulal Jaiswal and Sangitabai Laxman Shinde, were the Sarpanch and Deputy Sarpanch respectively of Grampanchayat Tembhurni....

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Panchayat No-Confidence Motion Dispute — MP's Inclusion for Quorum and Vote Upheld. The Court held that the Member of Parliament representing the Union Territory is a member of the Panchayat Samiti with full voting rights, including in no-confidence motions, under the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Panchayats) Regulation, 1994.

1 May 2019

The appeal arose from a dispute concerning the inclusion of a Member of Parliament (MP) representing the Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Island...

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...

High Court

Bombay High Court Quashes Additional Collector's Orders Upholding No-Confidence Motions Passed Under Section 35 of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act. Section 54D Procedure Requiring Secret Ballot in Gram Sabha Does Not Prevail Over Section 35 Power of Elected Panchayat Members, Both Provisions Operate Independently.

19 Mar 2015

The Bombay High Court addressed three writ petitions challenging orders of the Additional Collector, Gadchiroli, which had set aside no-confidence mot...

High Court

Bombay High Court Upholds Validity of 50% Reservation for Women in Gram Panchayats — Rule 3(1)(c) of Maharashtra Village Panchayats (Reservation of Seats for Women) Rules, 1995 Held Intra Vires the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 and Article 243D of the Constitution.

9 Oct 2014

The case involves a Letters Patent Appeal filed by Shri Tatyasaheb Ramchandra Kale against the judgment of a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court dis...

High Court

Bombay High Court Addresses Conflicting Precedents on Procedural Mandates for No Confidence Motions Under Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. Reference to Larger Bench Examines Whether Formal Motion and Seconding Requirement Under Rule 17 of Meeting Rules is Mandatory or Directory.

9 Oct 2014

The appeal before the Bombay High Court arose from a no confidence motion passed against the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Theur, Pune. The appellant, wh...

High Court

Bombay High Court Dismisses Chairman's Challenge to No-Confidence Motion in Agriculture Produce Market Committee Case — Notice of Motion Held Valid Despite Absence of Some Directors' Signatures. Court Declines to Interfere with Statutory Proceedings Under Section 14(4) of Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963, Directs Petitioner to Raise Objections Before Presiding Officer.

12 Feb 2014

The petitioner, Dinesh Sheshrao Thakre, was the Chairman of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Katol. He filed a writ petition challenging the ...

High Court

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petitions Challenging No-Confidence Motion Against Sarpanch. Notice Signed by Majority of Total Members of Grampanchayat is Valid Under Section 55(2) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961.

6 Apr 2010

The case involves two writ petitions filed by Shivkant Bangar and Gavlan Tekale challenging the no-confidence motion passed against the Sarpanch of Gr...

High Court

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petitions Challenging No-Confidence Motion Against Sarpanch in Gram Panchayat Dispute. Court holds that the motion was validly passed by a majority of members and the petitioners failed to establish any procedural irregularity under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act.

30 Nov -0001

The case involves a dispute regarding a no-confidence motion passed against the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Kasbe Sukene, Taluka Niphad, District Nashi...

High Court

Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeals Against Gram Panchayat Elections — Upholds Validity of Election Process Under Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act. Court holds that election of members of Gram Panchayat cannot be challenged after declaration of results except by an election petition under Section 15 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958.

30 Nov -0001

The judgment pertains to two Letters Patent Appeals (LPA No.203 of 2011 and LPA No.204 of 2011) filed against the orders of a learned Single Judge of ...

1 2 3

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