<?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>1965 (5) TMI 53 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468408</link>
    <description>A one-month objection period for proposed municipal ward delimitation satisfied Section 14(2) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, because objections were required to be filed within a period of not less than one month, not after the expiry of a fuller interval. The court distinguished between statutes requiring action after a stated period and those requiring action within a stated period, holding that in the latter class the first day is excluded and the last day included unless the statute clearly requires exclusion of both terminal days. The notification was therefore valid, the election challenge failed, and the contrary view was disapproved.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 May 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 May 2026 12:05:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=899987" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (5) TMI 53 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468408</link>
      <description>A one-month objection period for proposed municipal ward delimitation satisfied Section 14(2) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, because objections were required to be filed within a period of not less than one month, not after the expiry of a fuller interval. The court distinguished between statutes requiring action after a stated period and those requiring action within a stated period, holding that in the latter class the first day is excluded and the last day included unless the statute clearly requires exclusion of both terminal days. The notification was therefore valid, the election challenge failed, and the contrary view was disapproved.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 May 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468408</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>