Chaturbhuj & Co. vs Re. on 7 April, 1959
In the case of State of Bombay v. Pandurang Vinayak their Lordships said :
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 323 (2.28 seconds)Textile Labour Association, Bhadra, ... vs Official Liquidator, Ahmedabad And ... on 12 May, 1999
11.7 In view of the aforesaid reasoning, the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the secured creditors and Financial Institutions, for contending that the Court must go only for literal construction of statutory provisions and that when the meaning of the words of the statute is clear, the Court should not look to the purpose underlying the statutory provisions, are not relevant because the Apex Court itself has laid down in the case of the State of Bombay v. Pandurang V. Chaphalkar (supra) and Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar (supra) that while applying the legal fiction the Courts have to ascertain for what purpose the statutory fiction is created, and thereafter, within that field, the fiction is required to be taken to its logical conclusion. The purpose of creating a legal fiction in sub-section (6) of Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act is to give the workmen of the undertaking, which is illegally closed, all the benefits under any law for the time being in force as if the undertaking was not closed down.
Cce, Chandigarh vs M/S. Dogra Distilleries (P) Ltd. And ... on 8 March, 2001
" In interpreting a provision creating a legal fiction, the Court is to ascertain for what purpose the fiction is created; [refer Ex Parte Walton, In re Levy, (1881) 17 Ch D 746, p 756, State of Trav-Co v. Shanmugha Vilas Cashewnut Factory, Quilon, AIR 1953 SC 333, pp 342, 343, State of Bombay v Pandurang Vinayak, AIR 1953 SC 244, p 246], and after ascertaining this, the Court is to assume all those facts and consequences which are incidental or inevitable corollaries to the giving effect to the fiction, [refer East End Dwelling Co. Ltd. V. Finsbury Borough Council, (1951) 2 All ER 587, (HL) p 599; State of Bombay v. Pandurang Vinayak, supra p 246; CIT, Delhi v S Teja Singh, AIR 1959 SC 352, p 355; Chief Inspector of Mines v Karam Chand Thaper, AIR 1961 SC 838, p 845]. But in so construing the fiction it is not to be extended beyond the purpose for which it is created.
Amrit Cement Industries Ltd And Ors vs The State Of Meghalaya And Ors on 28 January, 2015
That statement of law aforesaid in respect of a statutory fiction
is being consistently followed by this Court. Reference in this
connection may be made to the cases of State of Bombay v.
Pandurang Vinayak Chaphalkar: 1953 SCR 773: AIR 1953
SC 244; Chief Inspector of Mines v. Karam Chand Thapar:
Shri Ram Krishan Parmhans Shikha ... vs Union Of India And Anr on 21 January, 2021
That statement of law in respect of a statutory fiction is
being consistently followed by this Court. Reference in
this connection may be made to the case of State
Bombay v. Pandurang Vinayak From the facts of that
case it shall appear that Bombay Building (Control on
Erection) Ordinance, 1948 which was applicable to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C)7954/2017 Page 21 of 29
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:22.01.2021
21:55:55
certain areas mentioned in the schedule to it, was
extended by a notification to all the areas in the
province in respect of buildings intended to be used for
the purposes of cinemas. The Ordinance was repealed
and replaced by an Act which again extended to areas
mentioned in the schedule with power under sub-
section (3) of Section 1 to extend its operation to other
areas. This Court held that the deemed clause
in Section 15 of the Act read with Section 25 of the
Bombay General Clauses Act has to be given full
effect and the expression 'enactment' in the Act will
cover the word 'Ordinance' occurring in the
notification which had been issued. In that connection
it was said:
Dr. Rahul Mittal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 April, 2022
[See:- East End Dwelling Co. Ltd. vs. Finsbury Borough
Council, (1951) 2 All ER 587, p. 589; referred to in State of Bombay vs.
Pandurang Vinayak, supra, p. 246; C.I.T., Delhi vs. S. Teja Singh,
supra, p. 355; Rajendraswami vs. Commissioner of Hindu Religious
and Charitable Endowments, Hyderabad, AIR 1965 SC 502, p. 505;
Shatrunjit (Raja) vs. Mohammad Azmat Azim Khan, AIR 1971 SC
13
W.P. No.13445 of 2018
1474, p. 1476; Daya Singh vs. Dhan Kaur, AIR 1974 SC 665, p. 668;
Boucher Pierre Andre vs. Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar, AIR 1975
SC 164, p. 166; Sundar Dass vs. Ram Parkash, AIR 1977 SC 1201, p.
1205; Ashok Leyland Ltd. vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2004) 3 SCC 1;
State of West Bengal vs. Sadam K. Bormal, AIR 2004 SC 3666, p. 3673;
Clariant International Ltd. vs. Securities & Exchange Board, (2004) 8
SCC 95 paras 6 and 7; See further Mohammad Iqbal Madar Sheikh vs.
State of Maharashtra, (1996) 1 SCC 722, p. 727; Manorey Alias
Manohar vs. Board of Revenue (U.P.), (2003) 5 SCC 521, pp. 526, 527
(deeming provision to be given full effect).
M/S Adarsh Stone Company (Crusher) vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 February, 2020
"12. The definition of mine shows that it is applicable to mines and it further
includes the premises and machinery situated in or adjacent to a mine and used
for crushing, processing, treating and transporting etc. Suffice it to say that
once the mine and machinery in the question are situated in the same locality,
it falls within the ambit of 'mine' under the Adhiniyam of 1949. Section 2(1)(j)
of Mines Act also makes it clear that any premises in or adjacent to and
belonging to mine will fall within the ambit of 'mine'. This is trite law that
expression 'mine' used in explanation (b) to Part B of Section 3 creates a legal
fiction. While interpreting the legal fiction, the court is required to ascertain
for what purpose the fiction is created [See: State of Bombay Vs. Pandurang
Vinayak and Others, AIR 1953 SC 244). In explanation (b) while defining
'mine' the expression ' means and includes' has been used which has to be
considered as exhaustive. In other words, the definition will embrace only
WA-202-2012 & connected matters
Textile Labour Association vs Official Liquidator Of Jubilee Mills ... on 12 May, 1999
In view of the aforesaid reasoning, the authorities cited by learned counsel for the secured creditors and financial institutions, for contending that the court must go,.only for literal construction of statutory provisions and that when the meaning of the words of the statute is clear, the court should not look to the purpose underlying the statutory provisions, are not relevant because the apex court itself has laid down in the case of the State of Bombay v. Pandurang Vinayak Chaphalhar [1953] SCR 773 and Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 661; 6 STC 446 (SC), that while applying the legal fiction the courts have to ascertain for what purpose the statutory fiction is created, and thereafter, within that field, the fiction is required to be taken to its logical conclusion. The purpose of creating a legal fiction in sub-section (6) of section workmen the right to get priority under sections 529 and 529A of the Act in respect of their claim for unpaid wages during the period of illegal closure.
Gautam Hari Singhania vs Hari Shankar Singhania And 20 Ors on 29 March, 2017
[1] State of Bombay vs. Pandurang
Vinayak and others1 (Para 5)
[2] American Home Products
Corporation vs. Mac Laboratories Ltd
and Anr.2 (Paras 56, 57 and 66)
In the light of the said judgments, he contended that since section 36
in terms state that an award has to be executed as if it is a decree and
wherever the words "as if it were a decree" are occurring in Order XXI,
1 AIR 1953 SC 244
2 AIR 1986 SC 137
81/87
::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2017 01:22:38 :::
COMAP/4/2016
COMAPL/5/2016
COMAPL/6/2016
it has to be treated as a decree and therefore it would be appealable as
a decree under section 13(1). It was contended that the present order
is in the nature of Order under Order XXI Rule 103 which even
otherwise states that appeal is provided. In our view ratio of the
judgments on which reliance is placed are not applicable to the facts of
the present case.
Acit, Central Circle- 26, New Delhi vs Gd Foods Manufacturing (India) Pvt. ... on 6 September, 2018
iii. Further reliance is placed on the following decision of Hon'ble
Supreme court & Delhi High Court (Copy of the judgment is
enclosed)
a. The State of Bombay vs. Pandurang Vinayak Chaphalkar and
others 1953 AIR 244;