Shri Balkrishna Shivaji Mali v. Tahsildar, Kavathemahankal & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Bench
- B H MARLAPALLE
Provisions considered
Judgment
Mr.More, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted petitioners application secret ballot considered Tahsildar. Admittedly Rules provide secret ballot a meeting called discussion confidence motion 4 and, therefore, a created favour petitioners concerned Rules, there was no error committed by the Tahsildar in not considering such a request. . The petitions are rejected summarily.
(B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.
This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record.
Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on
Bombay High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Writ Petition No. 4453 of 2006).
← Search more judgments