Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (1.35 seconds)Sunil Daulat Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra on 4 December, 2013
Said situation had also been considered and weighed in the
situation of Sunil Patil's case (supra), decision given in Hulle's
case (supra) had been taken into account and the case was
decided by the Hon'ble Single Judge. Having regard to aforesaid
observations, one may not be able to say that it is not a
judgment for it qualifies to be one, having regard that that
taking into account facts with legal principles as applicable to
these facts and the law governing the circumstances it had been
considered that the relief claimed based thereon could be
granted. As such, there appears to be little substance in the
contention of learned advocate for the respondents.
Gunwantro Yeshwantrao Deshmukh vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr. on 15 June, 1981
As such, case of Gunwantrao Deshmukh (supra)
may not be of any assistance for want of depiction of
appreciation of facts as are contented to have been placed
before respondent No.1.
Section 2 in The Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Section 36 in The Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Smt. Jijabai Bapurao Zingare vs State Of Maharashtra on 5 December, 2008
57. Mr. V. D. Salunke, learned advocate for respondents No. 4
to 6 in support of his contentions that a single default in holding
monthly meeting will incur disqualification, relies on two
judgments of Hon'ble Single Judges of this Court one in case of
"Jijabai Bapurao Zingare Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others" reported in
2009 (2) Bom.C.R. 681, wherein the Sarpanch had incurred
disqualification for not holding meetings observing thus -
1