Search Results for "Sarpanch resignation"

35 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 35 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Divisional Commissioner's Order on Sarpanch Resignation Under Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959. Procedural Non-Compliance Leads to Upholding of Resignation Dispute

The petitioners, filed a writ petition against the Divisional Commissioner's order allowing an appeal by Respondent No. 1, Sarpanch, regarding the gen...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes No-Confidence Motion Against Sarpanch for Non-Service of Notice. Service of Notice on Son Not Valid Service Under Section 35 of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959.

The petitioner, Smt. Sampada Vilas Mahargude, was the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Talewadi, Taluka Atpadi, District Sangli. A motion of no confidence w...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Sarpanch's Petition Challenging No-Confidence Motion. Disqualification under Section 14(1)(j-1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 applies only to candidates for election, not to sitting members, and the no-confidence motion was validly passed.

The Petitioner, Vitthal Rajaram Shitole, was the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Koregaonmul. He filed a writ petition challenging a no-confidence motion p...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes No-Confidence Motion Against Sarpanch for Violation of Section 35 of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act — Motion Held Invalid Due to Non-Compliance with Mandatory Procedure

The petitioner, Smt. Kalimun Balaso Nadaf, was the Sarpanch of Grampanchayat Udgaon. Respondent Nos. 3 to 11 submitted resignations from the post of m...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Up-Sarpanch Election in Gram Panchayat Dispute — No Disqualification Under Section 14(1)(j-3) of Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 for Failure to Pay Tax When No Tax Was Imposed.

The case involves a dispute regarding the election of the Up-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Sukli, District Akola. The petitioners, who are members of the...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Up-Sarpanch Election Due to Absence of Notice. Court Holds That Presence and Participation of All Members Cures Any Defect in Notice Under Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961.

The petitioners, who were members of Gram Panchayat Sukli, challenged the election of respondent no.6 as Up-Sarpanch. The election was held on 23.05.2...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes No-Confidence Motion Against Sarpanch Due to Invalid Votes by Resigned Members. Resignation of Grampanchayat Members Takes Effect Immediately Under Section 35(3A) of Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959, Rendering Their Participation in No-Confidence Motion Void.

The petitioner, Manjulabai Govind Dhumal, was the Sarpanch of Grampanchayat Kantekur, Taluka Omerga, District Osmanabad. The Grampanchayat consisted o...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Sarpanch's Challenge to No Confidence Motion Despite Prior Resignation. Resignation Not Effective Until Approval by Panchayat Samiti, No Confidence Motion Validly Passed Under Section 35 of Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958.

The petitioner, Chandrakant Bapuso Rugge, was the Sarpanch of Grampanchayat, Tamdalge. He tendered his resignation on 17 August 2012, addressed to the...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

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.

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...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

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.

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...