Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 135 (1.53 seconds)
Documents citing Amar Chandra Chakraborty vs Collector Of Excise, Government Of ... on 3 May, 1972

General Marketing And Manufacturing ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Others on 23 August, 1990

7. Let us first consider whether the principle of ejusdem generis will apply to the facts of this case. Under what circumstances, the principle of ejusdem generis can he applied to a case, has been explained by the Supreme Court in the decision (Amar Chandra Chakraborty v. Collector of Excise, Government of Tripura). The Supreme Court has observed in that case as follows :
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Madhu Wines And Ors. vs Special Chief Secretary, Revenue ... on 24 February, 2005

Amar Chandra v. Excise Collector, Tripura (supra), is a case in which the Government of Tripura cancelled the wholesale licence granted in favour of the appellant therein. The cancellation was on account of a policy decision taken by the State Government to grant such licences on tender-cum-auction basis. The appellant was granted licence on application. The Supreme Court upheld the action of the State, which was based on the policy. In the instant case, there is no change or shift in the policy in the matter of granting IL-24 licences. Rule 31 of the Rules continues to hold the field.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 18 - Cited by 2 - L N Reddy - Full Document

The State Of Maharashtra vs Jagan Gagansingh Nepali on 5 August, 2011

generis, would not be available. Since the preceding words do not constitute mere specification of the genus but constitute description of complete genus, the rule of ejusdem generis will have no application as held by the Apex Court in Amar Chandra Chakraborty v. Collector of Excise, Tripura and Tribhuban Parkash v. Union of India (cited supra). It is a settled principle of law that the rule has to be applied with care and caution. It is not inviolable rule of law but it has only permissible inference in the absence of any indication to the contrary. For the reasons to be discussed hereinafter we also find that even the legislative intent would not permit such a narrow construction. If the construction as put forth by the respondents has to be accepted, then the term "other advantage" would become otiose.
Bombay High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 31 - B R Gavai - Full Document

The State Of Maharashtra vs Jagan Gagansingh Nepali on 5 August, 2011

generis, would not be available. Since the preceding words do not constitute mere specification of the genus but constitute description of complete genus, the rule of ejusdem generis will have no application as held by the Apex Court in Amar Chandra Chakraborty v. Collector of Excise, Tripura and Tribhuban Parkash v. Union of India (cited supra). It is a settled principle of law that the rule has to be applied with care and caution. It is not inviolable rule of law but it has only permissible inference in the absence of any indication to the contrary. For the reasons to be discussed hereinafter we also find that even the legislative intent would not permit such a narrow construction. If the construction as put forth by the respondents has to be accepted, then the term "other advantage" would become otiose.
Bombay High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - B R Gavai - Full Document

The State Of Maharashtra vs Jagan Gagansingh Nepali on 5 August, 2011

generis, would not be available. Since the preceding words do not constitute mere specification of the genus but constitute description of complete genus, the rule of ejusdem generis will have no application as held by the Apex Court in Amar Chandra Chakraborty v. Collector of Excise, Tripura and Tribhuban Parkash v. Union of India (cited supra). It is a settled principle of law that the rule has to be applied with care and caution. It is not inviolable rule of law but it has only permissible inference in the absence of any indication to the contrary. For the reasons to be discussed hereinafter we also find that even the legislative intent would not permit such a narrow construction. If the construction as put forth by the respondents has to be accepted, then the term "other advantage" would become otiose.
Bombay High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - B R Gavai - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next