Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 291 (1.34 seconds)
Documents citing Vijay vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 26 July, 2006

Urmila Halder vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors on 9 August, 2018

67. The doctrine of fairness has also been applied by this Court in Vijay v. State of Maharashtra : (2006) 6 SCC 289. A restriction was introduced providing that a person shall not be a member of a panchayat or continue as such, if he has been elected as a Councillor of Zila Parishad or as a member of the Panchayat Samiti. This restriction was held to be retrospective and applicable to the existing members of the panchayat also. Applying the rule of literal construction, this Court held that when a literal reading of the provision giving retrospective effect does not produce absurdity or anomaly, the same would not be construed only prospective. This was further strengthened by the application of the rule of fairness."
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 101 - Cited by 13 - D Datta - Full Document

M/S. Adicon Builders & Promoters ... vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 6(1), Kanpur on 22 February, 2019

The same doctrine of fairness, to hold that a statute was retrospective in nature, was applied in the case of Vijay v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2006) 6 SCC 286 It was held that where a law is enacted for the benefit of community as a whole, even in the absence of a provision the statute may be held to be retrospective in nature. However, we are confronted with any such situation here.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Noble Resources & Trading India Pvt. ... vs Dcit, New Delhi on 15 March, 2019

Their Lordships then further observed that, "In Government of India & Ors. v. Indian Tobacco Association (2005) 7 SCC 396 = 2005- TIOL-109-SC-CUS the doctrine of fairness was held to be relevant factor to construe a statute conferring a benefit, in Page | 29 Noble Resources & Training India Pvt. Ltd Vs.DCIT, ITA No. 1827 & 1847/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) the context of it to be given a retrospective operation" and that "The same doctrine of fairness, to hold that a statute was retrospective in nature, was applied in the case of Vijay v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2006) 6 SCC 286. It was held that where a law is enacted for the benefit of community as a whole, even in the absence of a provision the statute may be held to be retrospective in nature." Their Lordships also noted that this retrospectively being attached to benefit the persons, is sharp contrast with the provision imposing some burden or inability where the presumption attaches towards prospectively.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 24 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Ito, Exemption Ward , Ghaziabad vs United Educational Society C/O Nimt ... on 28 June, 2019

The same doctrine of fairness, to hold that a statute was retrospective in nature, was applied in the case of Vijay v. State of Maharashtra &Ors. (2006) 6 SCC 286 It was held that where a law is enacted for the benefit of community as a whole, even in the absence of a provision the statute may be held to be retrospective in nature. However, we are confronted with any such situation here.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 90 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Neeraj Kumar Aggarwal vs The Ministry Of Corporate Affairs Mca on 18 July, 2019

Indian Tobacco Association, [(2005) 7 SCC 396], the doctrine of fairness was held to be relevant factor to construe a statute conferring a benefit, in the context of it to be given a retrospective operation. The same doctrine of fairness, to hold that a statute was retrospective in nature, was applied in the case of Vijay v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., [(2006) 6 SCC 289]. It was held that where a law is enacted for the benefit of community as a whole, even in the absence of a provision the statute may be held to be retrospective in nature. However, we are (sic not) confronted with any such situation here.
Telangana High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - A R Reddy - Full Document

Mumtaz Hussain Sohail Mohammed vs Union Of India on 18 July, 2019

Indian Tobacco Association, [(2005) 7 SCC 396], the doctrine of fairness was held to be relevant factor to construe a statute conferring a benefit, in the context of it to be given a retrospective operation. The same doctrine of fairness, to hold that a statute was retrospective in nature, was applied in the case of Vijay v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., [(2006) 6 SCC 289]. It was held that where a law is enacted for the benefit of community as a whole, even in the absence of a provision the statute may be held to be retrospective in nature. However, we are (sic not) confronted with any such situation here.
Telangana High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - A R Reddy - Full Document

Sunil Linga vs Union Of India on 18 July, 2019

Indian Tobacco Association, [(2005) 7 SCC 396], the doctrine of fairness was held to be relevant factor to construe a statute conferring a benefit, in the context of it to be given a retrospective operation. The same doctrine of fairness, to hold that a statute was retrospective in nature, was applied in the case of Vijay v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., [(2006) 6 SCC 289]. It was held that where a law is enacted for the benefit of community as a whole, even in the absence of a provision the statute may be held to be retrospective in nature. However, we are (sic not) confronted with any such situation here.
Telangana High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - A R Reddy - Full Document

Brunga Srinivas Rao, vs Union Of India on 18 July, 2019

Indian Tobacco Association, [(2005) 7 SCC 396], the doctrine of fairness was held to be relevant factor to construe a statute conferring a benefit, in the context of it to be given a retrospective operation. The same doctrine of fairness, to hold that a statute was retrospective in nature, was applied in the case of Vijay v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., [(2006) 6 SCC 289]. It was held that where a law is enacted for the benefit of community as a whole, even in the absence of a provision the statute may be held to be retrospective in nature. However, we are (sic not) confronted with any such situation here.
Telangana High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - A R Reddy - Full Document

Sri Yamireddy Rajiv Reddy, vs Union Of India, on 18 July, 2019

Indian Tobacco Association, [(2005) 7 SCC 396], the doctrine of fairness was held to be relevant factor to construe a statute conferring a benefit, in the context of it to be given a retrospective operation. The same doctrine of fairness, to hold that a statute was retrospective in nature, was applied in the case of Vijay v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., [(2006) 6 SCC 289]. It was held that where a law is enacted for the benefit of community as a whole, even in the absence of a provision the statute may be held to be retrospective in nature. However, we are (sic not) confronted with any such situation here.
Telangana High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - A R Reddy - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next