SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(Bom) 662

V.S.SIRPURKAR
Vijaykumar Maniklal Bang – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra & others – Respondent


JUDGMENT - SIRPURKAR V.S., J.:---The petitioner herein challenges the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Pusad, whereby the Additional District Judge allowed an appeal filed by one Sandeep Laxmanrao Banginwar, respondent No. 18 herein, and directed that the nomination form of the petitioner should be rejected. Following facts will highlight the grievance of the petitioner.

2. Elections of the Wards of Digras Municipal Council were declared and in pursuance thereof the petitioner filled up a nomination form from Ward No. 16 for being elected as a ward member. On the date of scrutiny, i.e., on 14-11-1996, respondent No. 18 - Sandeep Laxmanrao Banginwar filed an objection contending that the petitioner was a defaulter and had not paid the octroi taxes on the cars bearing Registration Nos. MH 29 B 1575 and MHX 4755. It was contended in the objection that the petitioner was, thus, a defaulter and had disqualified himself from contesting the election for the ward member. The Returning Officer, on this objection, called for a report from the respondent No. 3/Municipal Council and was informed by the Municipal Council that the octroi tax was already paid. The objection raised b















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top