Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (1.03 seconds)
Documents citing Gordhanbhai Kanjibhai vs Upleta Municipality And Anr. on 1 June, 1988

Subhash vs State on 27 August, 2008

9. It was contended that meeting could not have been adjourned without valid reasons. Nothing contained in section 36 or section 51 of the Act requires any special reason for adjournment of a meeting including a special meeting called for discussing a no confidence motion against the President or Vice-President of the Municipality if such adjournment is desired by majority of members. This aspect has been decided by the learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Gordhanbhai (supra) wherein it was held that it is open for the Municipality to adjourn the proceedings of no confidence motion.
Gujarat High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A Kureshi - Full Document

Geetaben L. Rathwa vs State Of Gujarat on 10 March, 2005

Further, the proceeding shows that in all there were 21 members of the Panchayat and 18 members remained present at the meeting and 15 members supported the motion of no-confidence and, therefore, the motion is carried by the majority of not less than 2/3rd. Therefore, even if the petitioner had remained present and opposed the motion, it would have made hardly any difference so far as carrying of the motion by the majority of not less than 2/3rds of the then members of the Panchayat was concerned. Therefore, I find that it cannot be said that any serious prejudice is caused to the petitioner, merely because the petitioner could not remain present at the meeting for addressing the house when the motion was considered in the meeting dated 24.9.2003. At this stage, it would be profitable to refer to certain observations of this Court in the case of "Patel Manubhai Khodidas v. Shri Sonara and Ors.", reported in 1989(2) GLR, 1215 and it deserves to be recorded that the observations were made by this Court in the aforesaid decision based on the observations of Division Bench of this Court in the LPA No. 223/1988 decided on 21.6.1988 in the case of "Gordhanbhai Kanjibhai v. Upleta Municipality".
Gujarat High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 4 - J Patel - Full Document

Madhuben Vakhatsinh Parmar vs Intwad Village Panchayat & 2 on 5 December, 2008

Court : one was in case of Geetaben L. Rathwa Vs. State of Gujarat reported in [2005] 9 G.H.J. (414), wherein the view taken by this Court based on two earlier decisions of this Court: one of the learned Single Judge of this Court and another of Division Bench of this Court in case of Patel Manubhai Khodidas Vs. Shri Sonara & Ors. reported in 1989(2) GLR 1215 and Letters Patent Appeal No.223 of 1988 in case of Gordhanbhai Kanjibhai Vs. Upleta Municipality. As per the said decision in case of Geetaben Rathwa, the Court has taken view that such would not result into in serious prejudice to the petitioner.
Gujarat High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - J Patel - Full Document
1