Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 276 (0.82 seconds)
Documents citing Gurudevdatta Vksss Maryadit & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 22 March, 2001

Belhekarwadi Vividh Karyakari Seva ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 4 July, 2019

17. It has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Gurudevdatta VKSSS Maryadit and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra) that, the Courts cannot infer legislative malice in passing a statute. Inference is restrictive in nature, nor a statutory provision can be held to be unconstitutional only on the ground that the special invitees appointed by the Government are not experts. If experts are not appointed as special invitees that at the most may be a ground to impeach the appointments made. The appointment if made of persons who are not expert, would not be sufficient to construe the statutory provision as unconstitutional.
Bombay High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - S V Gangapurwala - Full Document

Ganesh Sarjerao Pandarkar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 4 July, 2019

17. It has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Gurudevdatta VKSSS Maryadit and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra) that, the Courts cannot infer legislative malice in passing a statute. Inference is restrictive in nature, nor a statutory provision can be held to be unconstitutional only on the ground that the special invitees appointed by the Government are not experts. If experts are not appointed as special invitees that at the most may be a ground to impeach the appointments made. The appointment if made of persons who are not expert, would not be sufficient to construe the statutory provision as unconstitutional.
Bombay High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - S V Gangapurwala - Full Document

B. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman, ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its ... on 1 May, 2007

In Dr. D.C. Wadhwa and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. and Gurudevdatta VKSS Maryadit and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (60 supra), it was pointed out that the power conferred on the Governor to issue Ordinances is in the nature of an emergency power which is vested with the Governor for taking immediate action where such action may become necessary at a time when the Legislature is not in session. The power to promulgate an Ordinance was stated to be essentially a power to be used to meet an extraordinary situation and to be an emergent power to meet the emergency.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 125 - Cited by 2 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

Agricultural Produce Market Committee ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 4 July, 2019

17. It has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Gurudevdatta VKSSS Maryadit and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra) that, the Courts cannot infer legislative malice in passing a statute. Inference is restrictive in nature, nor a statutory provision can be held to be unconstitutional only on the ground that the special invitees appointed by the Government are not experts. If experts are not appointed as special invitees that at the most may be a ground to impeach the appointments made. The appointment if made of persons who are not expert, would not be sufficient to construe the statutory provision as unconstitutional.
Bombay High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - S V Gangapurwala - Full Document

Sanjay Tukaram Autade vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 4 July, 2019

17. It has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Gurudevdatta VKSSS Maryadit and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra) that, the Courts cannot infer legislative malice in passing a statute. Inference is restrictive in nature, nor a statutory provision can be held to be unconstitutional only on the ground that the special invitees appointed by the Government are not experts. If experts are not appointed as special invitees that at the most may be a ground to impeach the appointments made. The appointment if made of persons who are not expert, would not be sufficient to construe the statutory provision as unconstitutional.
Bombay High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - S V Gangapurwala - Full Document

Calcutta Soft Drinks Private Limited vs Calcutta Municipal Corporation And ... on 31 July, 2006

(3) (Gurudevdatta Vksss Maryadit and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.) It is a cardinal principle of interpretation of statute that the words of a statute must be understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense and construed according to their grammatical meaning, unless such construction leads to some absurdity or unless there is something in the context or in the object of the statute to suggest to the contrary. The golden rule is that the words of a statute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning. It is yet another rule of construction that when the words of the statute are clear, plain and unambiguous, then the Courts are bound to give effect to that meaning, irrespective of the consequence. It is said that the words themselves best declare the intention of the lawgiver. The Courts have adhered to the principle that efforts should be made to give meaning to each and every word used by the legislature and it is not a sound principle of construction to brush aside words in a statute as being inapposite surpluses, if they can have a proper application in circumstances conceivable within the contemplation of the statute.
Calcutta High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 8 - A K Banerjee - Full Document

Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited & Ors vs Renew Wind Energy (Rajkot) Private ... on 6 December, 2018

The learned counsel further contended that the reliance of the Appellant on the statement of reasons issued by the Central Commission to interpret amended provisions is both impermissible and misplaced. It is a settled proposition of law that the statement of reasons cannot be utilised for the purpose of restricting and controlling the plain meaning of the language employed by the legislature in drafting a statute. To substantiate his contention, the learned counsel cited judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, i.e. Bhaji vs. Sub-Divisional Officer, Thandla and Others 1; Gurudevdatta VKSSS Maryadit and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Others 2.
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 34 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

M/S Pacific Exports vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 August, 2019

23. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gurudevdatta Vksss Maryadit & Others Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others, (Supra) relied upon by the learned senior counsel of the applicants held "the golden rule is that the words of a statute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning. It is yet another rule of construction that when the words of the statute are clear, plain an unambiguous, then the Courts are bound to give effect to that meaning, irrespective of the consequences."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - R K Dubey - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next