Search Results for "Upa Sarpanch"

46 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 46 result(s)

© 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 Stay on Grampanchayat Elections Due to Lack of Jurisdiction and Violation of Natural Justice. Additional Collector's Order Staying Sarpanch/Up-Sarpanch Elections Set Aside as Unauthorized Under Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959.

The petitioners, Parmeshwar Kachru Satpute and Dadasaheb Baburao Khindkar, were members of the Group Grampanchayat of Babhalwadi, Bedkuchiwadi, and Be...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Refusal of Interim Stay in No Confidence Motion Case — No Fresh Motion Barred Under Section 35(3-A) of Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 as First Motion Was Not Moved or Carried.

The appellant, Tatyasaheb Ramchandra Kale, was elected Sarpanch of Theur village panchayat in 2010. On 5 October 2011, a no confidence motion was init...

© 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 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.

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

© 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...