<?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>1923 (3) TMI 7 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289621</link>
    <description>Municipal voting disqualification depends on whether a councillor has a direct or indirect real interest of a pecuniary or material kind capable of creating a conflict between interest and duty. On that footing, beneficial shareholding and nominee or mortgage-backed beneficial interests were treated as disqualifying, while a trustee without a voting role, a person who had genuinely divested beneficial ownership, and a holder of a complimentary tram pass were not shown to have the requisite interest. The chairman&#039;s post-poll declaration was not conclusive where the validity of votes remained open to scrutiny, and the challenge to the voting result was justiciable. The suit was maintainable despite being framed in the plaintiff&#039;s own name, and declaratory and injunctive relief was granted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Mar 1923 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2020 09:58:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=619387" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1923 (3) TMI 7 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289621</link>
      <description>Municipal voting disqualification depends on whether a councillor has a direct or indirect real interest of a pecuniary or material kind capable of creating a conflict between interest and duty. On that footing, beneficial shareholding and nominee or mortgage-backed beneficial interests were treated as disqualifying, while a trustee without a voting role, a person who had genuinely divested beneficial ownership, and a holder of a complimentary tram pass were not shown to have the requisite interest. The chairman&#039;s post-poll declaration was not conclusive where the validity of votes remained open to scrutiny, and the challenge to the voting result was justiciable. The suit was maintainable despite being framed in the plaintiff&#039;s own name, and declaratory and injunctive relief was granted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Mar 1923 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289621</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>