Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.49 seconds)Babubhai Muljibhai Patel vs Nandlal Khodidas Barot & Ors on 17 September, 1974
Thus the persons who give the notice are required to state that the facts are true both to their information and knowledge. Some facts in the notice of motion may be true only to the knowledge and some facts may be based only upon the information and not knowledge. In such circumstances, the person cannot make declaration that the facts are true both to the knowledge and information. In such a case the persons giving the notice cannot make the verification in the form prescribed. Is it the intention of the legislature that the resolution of no confidence against the Sarpanch cannot be moved unless the persons giving notice have both information and knowledge of all the facts? Again, as held by the Apex Court in the case of Babubhai Mulji Patel (supra) the motion of no confidence need not have any grounds. What is the necessity of the "verification clause" based both on information and knowledge when it is not necessary at all to state the grounds on which the resolution of no confidence is moved. I therefore hold that the form of notice given below the Rules is only directory and not mandatory.
Nimba Rajaram Mali vs Collector, Jalgaon & Others on 23 July, 1998
10. In the present case resolution against the respondent No. 4 was passed by 2/3 majority of 10 out of 15 members. Respondent No. 4 should have therefore, gracefully walked out, instead she has chosen to challenge the resolution on technical grounds which is contrary to the observations made by this court in the case of Annapurnabai Ajabrao referred to supra. The decision of the Division Bench in Annapurnabai Ajabrao's case was followed by another Division Bench of this court in the case of N. R. Mali v. Collector, Jalgaon reported in 1998(3) Mh.LJ. 204 = AIR 1999 Bombay 335. In the said case, it was observed :
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
1