<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1988 (7) TMI 333 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101641</link>
    <description>The character of an interruption in a municipal corporation&#039;s first meeting for election of the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and standing committee members was the decisive issue. The Court treated the contemporaneous affidavits and surrounding disorder as showing a disruption, but found that the Municipal Commissioner remained in the chair, said proceedings would resume later, and fixed a same-day time for resumption. Because the statutory scheme made the first meeting crucial and required it on the day fixed by the Commissioner, an adjournment to another day or sine die was inconsistent with the Act. The meeting was therefore only suspended and validly resumed later the same day, and the election proceedings were not invalid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Jul 2025 10:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=138690" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (7) TMI 333 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101641</link>
      <description>The character of an interruption in a municipal corporation&#039;s first meeting for election of the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and standing committee members was the decisive issue. The Court treated the contemporaneous affidavits and surrounding disorder as showing a disruption, but found that the Municipal Commissioner remained in the chair, said proceedings would resume later, and fixed a same-day time for resumption. Because the statutory scheme made the first meeting crucial and required it on the day fixed by the Commissioner, an adjournment to another day or sine die was inconsistent with the Act. The meeting was therefore only suspended and validly resumed later the same day, and the election proceedings were not invalid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101641</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>