Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (1.25 seconds)
Documents citing Ramji Purshottam (D) By Lrs. & Ors vs Laxmanbhai D, Kurlawala (D) By Lrs. & Anr on 23 April, 2004

Public Service Commission, ... vs Jagdish Chandra Singh Bora . on 3 March, 2014

16. Mr. C.U. Singh, appearing for the respondents submitted that vested rights of the respondents under 2003 Rules could not have been taken away by issuance of executive instruments issued on 29th April, 2004. He further submitted that in this case no retrospective effect is being given to the 2003 Rules as these Rules were framed in respect of antecedent facts. He relies on the judgment of this Court in Ramji Purshottam (dead) by Lrs. & Ors. Vs. Laxmanbhai D. Kurlawala (dead) by Lrs. & Anr.[8]
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hotel Rosalia Pvt. Ltd. By Its Managing ... vs G.B. Hirani on 18 July, 2005

and Ors. v. Laxmanbhai D. Kurlawala (Dead) by LRs. and Anr. and further contended that in view of the explanation 3 as inserted by amendment Act 51/75 to Section 12 of the Bombay Rent Act, the water charges paid by the tenant, if any, must be returned or reimbursed by the landlord and such tenant cannot be deemed to be in arrears of rent outstanding against him unless the said amount is adjusted. She, therefore, contended that as admittedly the water charges were paid and unless that excess amount is adjusted, it cannot be said that the respondent-tenant were in arrears of rent. The issue about payment of water charges without any agreement and/or permission from the landlord was not agitated in the Written Statement or earlier point of time, cannot be allowed to be raised now in the present Writ Petition. The Trial Court's reasons in this regard is correct. Therefore, there is no question of any adjustments as claimed by the tenant. In the evidence and as per the record, there is nothing to prove that the tenant had deposited or paid any water charges. DW1 in his evidence only admitted to have paid Rs.1445/- towards electricity charges and not water charges.
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - A V Mohta - Full Document

Nepc Micon Limited, Nepc Agro Foods ... vs Sashi Prakash Khemka And Ors. on 10 October, 2006

Dr. Vijay Anand Maharaj; it will not be open to the Court to adopt any other construction on the ground that such construction is more consistent with the alleged object or the policy of the Act. It is equally an established principle of construction that every statute is prima facie prospective unless expressly or implied made to have retrospective operation. Hence, in the absence of any specific provision or an intention discernible where the language is not clear, the retrospective construction rests no more than a principle of simple fairness which is made the basis of construction. Hence, ultimately, one has to again return to the principle of construction based on the intention of the legislature gathered from the language used, the objects indicated circumstances under which statute is passed. - Ramji Purushottam v. Lakshman Bai D.Kurlawala).
Madras High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 3 - C Venkataraman - Full Document

State Of U.P. And Anr vs Dinkar Sinha on 9 May, 2007

23. The 1980 Rules to the aforementioned effect has been given a retrospective effect, i.e. from 6.08.1978 only for achieving the said purpose noticed hereinbefore. By reason thereof, thus, the 1973 Rules had not been kept alive. We may at this juncture notice that Lahoti, J. (as the learned Chief Justice then was) in Ramji Purshottam (Dead) by LRs. And Ors. v. Laxmanbhai D. Kurlawala (Dead) By LRs. And Anr., [2004] 6 SCC 455 stated:
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 35 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Public Service Commission, ... vs Jagdish Chandra Singh Bora & Ors on 3 March, 2014

16. Mr. C.U. Singh, appearing for the respondents submitted that vested rights of the respondents under 2003 Rules could not have been taken away by issuance of executive instruments issued on 29th April, 2004. He further submitted that in this case no retrospective effect is being given to the 2003 Rules as these Rules were framed in respect of antecedent facts. He relies on the judgment of this Court in Ramji Purshottam (dead) by Lrs. & Ors. Vs. Laxmanbhai D. Kurlawala (dead) by Lrs. & Anr.[8]
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 22 - R P Desai - Full Document
1   2 Next