Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Motion Re in Jagdish Prasad And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 6 February, 2003Matching Fragments
41. He further submits that interpretation accorded in the case of Ramchandra also goes contrary to the provisions of Rule 3(8) of the Rules of 1974, if the meeting is not held for want of corum, the motion of no confidence would be deemed to have lost. Such a situation arise if the interpretation accorded in the case of Ramchandra is not re-considered as in that situation the makers of the motion faced with a sure defeat of the motion would conveniently withdraw the same and thus defeat the underlying spirit of Rule 3(8) of Rules 1974.