Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 814 (1.97 seconds)
Documents citing Chandra Prakash Tiwari And Ors vs Shakuntala Shukla And Ors on 9 May, 2002

Kunal Kashyap vs Pr.Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 1 October, 2024

37. A special enactment or Rule, therefore, cannot be held to be overridden by a later general enactment or simply because the latter opens up with a nonobstante clause unless there is clear inconsistency between the two legislations -- one which is later in order of time and the other which is a special enactment. This issue came again for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla -- AIR 2002 SC 2322 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted with approval the Broom's Legal Maxim in reference to two Latin Maxims in the following words: "It is then, an elementary Rule that an earlier Act must give place to a later, if the two cannot be reconciled - lex posterior derogate priori - non est novum ut priores leges ad posteriors trahantur (Emphasis supplied) - and one Act may repeal another by express words or by implication; for it is enough if there be words which by necessary implication repeal it. But repeal by implication is never to be favoured, and must not be imputed to the legislature without necessity, or strong reason, to be shown by the party imputing it. It is only effected where the provisions of the later enactment are so inconsistent with, or repugnant to, those of the earlier that the two cannot stand together2; unless the two Acts are so plainly repugnant to each other that effect cannot be given to both at the same time a repeal cannot be implied; and special Acts are not repealed by general Acts unless there be some express reference to the previous legislation, or a necessary inconsistency in the two Acts standing together, which prevents the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant (Emphasis supplied) from being applied. For where there are general Page 20 of 21 words in a later Act capable of reasonable application without being extended to subjects specially dealt with by earlier legislation, then, in the absence of an indication of a particular intention to that effect, the presumption is that the general words were not intended to repeal the earlier and special legislation, or to take away a particular privilege of a particular class of persons."
Central Information Commission Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kunal Kashyap vs Pr.Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 1 October, 2024

37. A special enactment or Rule, therefore, cannot be held to be overridden by a later general enactment or simply because the latter opens up with a nonobstante clause unless there is clear inconsistency between the two legislations -- one which is later in order of time and the other which is a special enactment. This issue came again for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla -- AIR 2002 SC 2322 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted with approval the Broom's Legal Maxim in reference to two Latin Maxims in the following words: "It is then, an elementary Rule that an earlier Act must give place to a later, if the two cannot be reconciled - lex posterior derogate priori - non est novum ut priores leges ad posteriors trahantur (Emphasis supplied) - and one Act may repeal another by express words or by implication; for it is enough if there be words which by necessary implication repeal it. But repeal by implication is never to be favoured, and must not be imputed to the legislature without necessity, or strong reason, to be shown by the party imputing it. It is only effected where the provisions of the later enactment are so inconsistent with, or repugnant to, those of the earlier that the two cannot stand together2; unless the two Acts are so plainly repugnant to each other that effect cannot be given to both at the same time a repeal cannot be implied; and special Acts are not repealed by general Acts unless there be some express reference to the previous legislation, or a necessary inconsistency in the two Acts standing together, which prevents the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant (Emphasis supplied) from being applied. For where there are general Page 20 of 21 words in a later Act capable of reasonable application without being extended to subjects specially dealt with by earlier legislation, then, in the absence of an indication of a particular intention to that effect, the presumption is that the general words were not intended to repeal the earlier and special legislation, or to take away a particular privilege of a particular class of persons."
Central Information Commission Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Girish Sharma vs Chief Commissioner Of Customs, Kolkata ... on 4 October, 2024

37. A special enactment or Rule, therefore, cannot be held to be overridden by a later general enactment or simply because the latter opens up with a nonobstante clause unless there is clear inconsistency between the two legislations -- one which is later in order of time and the other which is a special enactment. This issue came again for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla -- AIR 2002 SC 2322 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted with approval the Broom's Legal Maxim in reference to two Latin Maxims in the following words:
Central Information Commission Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sandeep Kumar vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 28 March, 2024

37. A special enactment or Rule, therefore, cannot be held to be overridden by a later general enactment or simply because the latter opens up with a nonobstante clause unless there is clear inconsistency between the two legislations -- one which is later in order of time and the other which is a special enactment. This issue came again for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla -- AIR 2002 SC 2322 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted with approval the Broom's Legal Maxim in reference to two Latin Maxims in the following words:
Central Information Commission Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Manoj Kumar Singh vs Director Genral Of Income Tax (Inv.) ... on 19 July, 2024

37. A special enactment or Rule, therefore, cannot be held to be overridden by a later general enactment or simply because the latter opens up with a nonobstante clause unless there is clear inconsistency between the two legislations -- one which is later in order of time and the other which is a special enactment. This issue came again for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla -- AIR 2002 SC 2322 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted with approval the Broom's Legal Maxim in reference to two Latin Maxims in the following words: "It is then, an elementary Rule that an earlier Act must give place to a later, if the two cannot be reconciled - lex posterior derogate priori - non est novum ut priores leges ad posteriors trahantur (Emphasis supplied) - and one Act Page 8 of 9 may repeal another by express words or by implication; for it is enough if there be words which by necessary implication repeal it. But repeal by implication is never to be favoured, and must not be imputed to the legislature without necessity, or strong reason, to be shown by the party imputing it. It is only effected where the provisions of the later enactment are so inconsistent with, or repugnant to, those of the earlier that the two cannot stand together2; unless the two Acts are so plainly repugnant to each other that effect cannot be given to both at the same time a repeal cannot be implied; and special Acts are not repealed by general Acts unless there be some express reference to the previous legislation, or a necessary inconsistency in the two Acts standing together, which prevents the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant (Emphasis supplied) from being applied. For where there are general words in a later Act capable of reasonable application without being extended to subjects specially dealt with by earlier legislation, then, in the absence of an indication of a particular intention to that effect, the presumption is that the general words were not intended to repeal the earlier and special legislation, or to take away a particular privilege of a particular class of persons."
Central Information Commission Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sandeep Kumar vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 28 March, 2024

37. A special enactment or Rule, therefore, cannot be held to be overridden by a later general enactment or simply because the latter opens up with a nonobstante clause unless there is clear inconsistency Page 7 of 9 between the two legislations -- one which is later in order of time and the other which is a special enactment. This issue came again for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla -- AIR 2002 SC 2322 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted with approval the Broom's Legal Maxim in reference to two Latin Maxims in the following words:
Central Information Commission Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jigen P Sharedalal vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 20 February, 2025

37. A special enactment or Rule, therefore, cannot be held to be overridden by a later general enactment or simply because the latter opens up with a nonobstante clause unless there is clear inconsistency between the two legislations -- one which is later in order of time and the other which is a special enactment. This issue came again for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla -- AIR 2002 SC 2322 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted with approval the Broom's Legal Maxim in reference to two Latin Maxims in the following words:
Central Information Commission Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rabiuddin Ahmed vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 25 March, 2025

37. A special enactment or Rule, therefore, cannot be held to be overridden by a later general enactment or simply because the latter opens up with a nonobstante clause unless there is clear inconsistency between the two legislations -- one which is later in order of time and the other which is a special enactment. This issue came again for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla -- AIR 2002 SC 2322 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted with approval the Broom's Legal Maxim in reference to two Latin Maxims in the following words: "It is then, an elementary Rule that an earlier Act must give place to a later, if the two cannot be reconciled - lex posterior derogate priori - non est novum ut priores leges ad posteriors trahantur (Emphasis supplied) - and one Act Page 7 of 9 may repeal another by express words or by implication; for it is enough if there be words which by necessary implication repeal it. But repeal by implication is never to be favoured, and must not be imputed to the legislature without necessity, or strong reason, to be shown by the party imputing it. It is only effected where the provisions of the later enactment are so inconsistent with, or repugnant to, those of the earlier that the two cannot stand together2; unless the two Acts are so plainly repugnant to each other that effect cannot be given to both at the same time a repeal cannot be implied; and special Acts are not repealed by general Acts unless there be some express reference to the previous legislation, or a necessary inconsistency in the two Acts standing together, which prevents the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant (Emphasis supplied) from being applied. For where there are general words in a later Act capable of reasonable application without being extended to subjects specially dealt with by earlier legislation, then, in the absence of an indication of a particular intention to that effect, the presumption is that the general words were not intended to repeal the earlier and special legislation, or to take away a particular privilege of a particular class of persons."
Central Information Commission Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Susmita Deb vs Chief Commissioner Of Customs, Kolkata ... on 26 July, 2024

37. A special enactment or Rule, therefore, cannot be held to be overridden by a later general enactment or simply because the latter opens up with a nonobstante clause unless there is clear inconsistency between the two legislations -- one which is later in order of time and the other which is a special enactment. This issue came again for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla -- AIR 2002 SC 2322 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted with approval the Broom's Legal Maxim in reference to two Latin Maxims in the following words:
Central Information Commission Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next