Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 679 (1.88 seconds)
Documents citing Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd vs Municlpal Board, Rampur on 30 October, 1964

M/S.Masterstroke Freight Forwarders ... vs The Commissioner Of Customs (Imports) on 27 October, 2015

In Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd v. The Municipal Board [AIR 1965 SC 895], a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that the question whether a particular provision is mandatory or directory, cannot be resolved by laying down any general rule and that it would depend upon the facts of each case. The Court has to consider the purpose for which the provision had been made, its nature, the intention of the legislature in making the provision, the serious general inconvenience or injustice to persons resulting therefrom when the provision is read one way or the other, the relation of the particular provision to other provisions dealing with the same subject as well as other considerations which may arise on the facts of a particular case, including the language of the provision.
Madras High Court Cites 61 - Cited by 6 - R Mahadevan - Full Document

Shaji Purushothaman vs Union Of India on 30 January, 2020

In Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. v. The Municipal Board [AIR 1965 SC 895], a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that the question whether a particular provision is mandatory or directory, cannot be resolved by laying down any general rule and that it would depend upon the facts of each case. The Court has to consider the purpose for which the provision had been made, its nature, the intention of the legislature in making the provision, the serious general inconvenience or injustice to persons resulting therefrom when the provision is read one way or the other, the relation of the particular provision to other provisions dealing with the same subject as well as other considerations which may arise on the facts of a particular case, including the language of the provision.
Madras High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - M Sathyanarayanan - Full Document

Chowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India And Others on 12 August, 1987

37. Whether the word "shall" in a particular provision of law makes in mandatory or directory depends on the facts of each case, the Supreme Court observed in Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd., Rampur v. The Municipal Board, Rampur (supra). It will be, therefore, pertinent and necessary to advert to the said Section 46. This provision of law clearly requires the importer of any goods, other than those in transit or for transhipment, to make an entry thereof before the competent Customs Officer and further prescribes that such an entry is to be made by presenting a Bill of Entry for home consumption or warehousing in the prescribed form. It was already seen that the use of the word "shall" may at the first glance make it appear that Section 46 is mandatory in nature and that, as such, the importer of such goods, is bound to make entry thereof by presenting a Bill of Entry in the prescribed form. This, however, does not seem to be correct when the said provision of the Customs Act is read in conjunction with others, particularly with Section 48. This Section deals with the consequences of the non-compliance with what is laid down in Section 46 an provides that if any goods brought into India from a place outside India are not cleared for home consumption or warehoused or transshipped within 45 days from the date of unloading thereof at a customs station or within such further time as the proper Officer may allow or if the title to any imported goods is relinquished, such goods may, after notice to the importer, and with the permission of the proper Officer be sold by the person having the custody thereof. This provision indicates that the Legislature by using the word "shall" in Section 46 did not intend to make it mandatory and that the said Section is merely directory. That apart, a careful reading of Section 46 shows that the essence of the provision is the making of the entry of the imported goods, the manner in which the entry is made being merely a question of procedure. The presentation of the Bill of Entry in the prescribed form is thus a pure procedural aspect of the making of the entry of the imported goods, a matter of form. For these reasons, the intention of the Legislature appears clear and, therefore, on the strength of the above mentioned rulings of the Supreme Court, it follows that Section 46 is merely directory and not mandatory.
Bombay High Court Cites 61 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vikas Trivedi vs State Of U.P. And Others on 23 April, 2013

The judgment of the Apex Court in Raza Buland Sugar Company's case (supra) is applicable in full force and in view of clear ratio of the above judgment, it cannot be said that manner of sending notice in prescribed proforma along with annexures is mandatory, breach of which shall vitiate the entire proceeding. The proceeding of no confidence motion shall be proceeded with if there is substantial compliance of the provisions of Rule-2 read with Form-2.
Allahabad High Court Cites 76 - Cited by 20 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Satish Arora vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 November, 2022

49. Furthermore, a provision in a statute which is procedural in nature although employs the word "shall" may not be held to be mandatory if thereby no prejudice is caused. (See Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd versus Municipal Board, Rampur, AIR 1965 SC 895; State Bank of Patiala versus S.K. Sharma, (1996) 3 SCC 364; Venkataswamappa versus Special Dy. Commr (Revenue), (1997)9 SCC 128; and Rai Vimal Krishna versus State of Bihar, (2003) 6 SCC 401)."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 65 - Cited by 4 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document

Arti vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 30 May, 2017

The judgment of the Apex Court in Raza Buland Sugar Company's case (supra) is applicable in full force and in view of clear ratio of the above judgment, it cannot be said that manner of sending notice in prescribed proforma along with annexures is mandatory, breach of which shall vitiate the entire proceeding. The proceeding of no confidence motion shall be proceeded with if there is substantial compliance of the provisions of Rule-2 read with Form-2."
Allahabad High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next