Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.26 seconds)

Murlidhar Bhaulal Malu And Ors. vs Sudhakar Honaji Patil And Anr. on 18 September, 1987

4 2004 BCI 518 5 2001 (I ) Mh.L.J. 659 14/25 ::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 04:41:47 ::: DSS j-wp-897-16 Bench of this Court, in case of Murlidhar Malu Vs. Sudhakar H. Patil and anr. 6, has also held that the relevant date to disqualify a Member would be the last date of filing nomination. If therefore, before this date, a Member, is no longer in default, his nomination, cannot be rejected.
Bombay High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Keshaorao Narayanrao Patil vs District Deputy Registrar And Ors. on 16 April, 1987

Legislature has not provided that if default is once committed stigma shall continue for a specified period. It has not been provided that a stigma would last for a particular period irrespective of the fact that the concerned member wants to make payment of amounts and has actually paid defaulted money. The principle underlying the disqualification so far as the election law is concerned is that he should not be a defaulter on the last day of the nomination. There is nothing in section 73-FF or any of the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 to interpret that a default once committed will disentitle the primary member to be elected or nominated, co-opted or appointed, as the case may be, as member of the managing committee of any Co- operative Society at any time in future. There is no provision to disqualify him even for the next election due if he has paid amount defaulted. Any penal provision, however reasonable it may appear, cannot be added to the statute when actually there is none. Penal provisions are to be interpreted strictly and should be confined to the class and circumstances which have been laid down in the provision.
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 10 - Full Document
1   2 Next