Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.29 seconds)

Smt.Satya Prakashi Parsedia vs The State Of M.P. on 21 June, 2016

In Smt. Satya Prakashi Parsadia (supra) the Court has interpreted what is provided in the Rules, however, in absence of any such provision concerning satisfaction of the prescribed authority having been mentioned under Rule 3 (1), it is not permissible to hold that the Collector was required to personally verify the signature of each of the member signing the motion of no confidence.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1