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

2001 Supreme(Bom) 834

R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR
PANDHARI s/o SHRIPAT PATIL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondent


ORAL JUDGMENT :- How to count the period of seven days limitation under section 35(2) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, (hereinafter called as "the said Act") is the point for consideration which arises in the present petition.

2. Heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the record. Rule, By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.

3. The petitioner challenges the orders passed by the authorities below rejecting the petitions against the no confidence motion passed against the petitioner in a meeting stated to have been held on 27-3-2001. The ground of challenge to the resolution is that though the notice requiring the Tahsildar to convene the meeting to consider the no confidence motion against the petitioner was received from the Panchayat members by the Tahsildar on 19-3-2001 and the notice thereof convening the meeting was issued immediately, the meeting was actually held on 27-3-2001 and. therefore, it was held beyond the period of 7 days in contravention of the provisions of law contained in section 35 of the said Act and hence the proceedings are bad in law. Reliance is sought to be placed on the unreported decision of this Court in Writ Petit



















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