https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192306 The Supreme Court construed Section 87-A of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 to hold that the seven clear days' notice requirement was satisfied by the date of despatch, not receipt, so notice sent on 17 November for a 25 November meeting was valid. It further held that the phrase "not earlier than thirty days" permitted the thirtieth day itself, making the meeting date lawful. The Court also held that the presiding judicial officer could validly adjourn the meeting in advance if already unable to preside, as the statutory scheme allowed notification of another date and time. The challenge to the non-confidence proceedings therefore failed. en-us Fri, 05 May 1967 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 May 2017 13:24:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192306 The Supreme Court construed Section 87-A of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 to hold that the seven clear days' notice requirement was satisfied by the date of despatch, not receipt, so notice sent on 17 November for a 25 November meeting was valid. It further held that the phrase "not earlier than thirty days" permitted the thirtieth day itself, making the meeting date lawful. The Court also held that the presiding judicial officer could validly adjourn the meeting in advance if already unable to preside, as the statutory scheme allowed notification of another date and time. The challenge to the non-confidence proceedings therefore failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 05 May 1967 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192306