Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.20 seconds)
Kurakula Nagabhushaiah vs The State Of Telangana on 13 February, 2024 cites

K. Sujatha vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr. on 2 April, 2004

" 28. The purpose and object of giving notice of consideration of no confidence motion is only to give due intimation to the members or information of the proposed meeting. Therefore, the fact that a member has got a shorter period of notice than fifteen clear days from the date of receipt of the notice would not matter. When notice is sent by post and the law permits the date of sending of notice to be treated as the date of 10 delivery in that case obviously the period available to the member will be shorter than fifteen clear days from delivery to meeting, therefore, there is no reason why the Rule 3 be held to be mandatory as regards the service of notice. Unless it is shown that the shortfall in the period of notice of the meeting has caused some prejudice to the member, neither the meeting nor the proceedings taken there under would be said to be invalid. It is only in the eventuality of prejudice being shown that the meeting or the proceedings taken thereunder can said to be invalid. The Legislature has rightly not provided in the rule that non-compliance of any shortfall in the notice would render the meeting or the proceedings taken thereunder to be invalid.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 24 - Cited by 27 - G Rohini - Full Document

Darnam Laxminarayana, S/O Sayanna And ... vs The Deputy Registrar Of Co-Operative ... on 9 April, 2013

7. From the above extracted legal position, this Court is of the view that in the absence of any provision in the Act or the Rules, either expressly or by necessary implication, mandating service of copy of 'No Confidence Motion' along with the notice to be served by the registrar to all the members, it is not possible to hold that service of copy of 'No Confidence Motion' must be read into the provisions of the Act. As rightly held by this Court in Darnam Laxminarayana's case (supra), when there is a minimum time limit of 15 days between service of notice and date of 'No 11 Confidence Motion', if the person against whom 'No Confidence Motion' is moved or his supporters feel the necessity of knowing the contents of the Motion, they will have sufficient time to approach the Registrar with a request to furnish a copy of 'No Confidence Motion' and other necessary details regarding 'No Confidence Motion'. If such a request is made, this Court feels that it is mandatory on the part of the Registrar to furnish a copy of 'No Confidence Motion' and other details relevant for the purpose of Motion to such members. The Legislature has, obviously, assumed that as such a facility is always available to the members, the requirement of service of copy of 'No Confidence Motion' along with the notice is not necessary.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - C V Reddy - Full Document
1