Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (1.14 seconds)
Documents citing Thompson vs Calcutta Tramways Company on 26 February, 1894

Mahammad Fateh Nasib vs Saradindu Mukherjee on 23 January, 1936

It appears in Hafez Mohammad v. Aminuddin 1934 Cal 25 and Salima Sheehan v. Hafez Mahomed 1932 Cal 685 (supra) has been distinguished on such a ground. The question then arises, whether the case, though it must be taken to have been correctly decided on its own merits, can be treated as laying down any general principle or proposition of law of the nature contended for on behalf of the defendant. Order 7, Rule 11 (c) of the Code says "within a time to be fixed by the Court." It has not been and indeed cannot be urged in view of Section 148 of the Code that the time so granted cannot be enlarged from time to time. Nor can it be doubted that that section expressly empowers the Court to extend any time fixed by it even after the expiry of the period originally fixed.
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

The Commissioner,Commercial Tax vs S/S Modi Naturals Ltd. on 3 May, 2019

"The question which therefore arises for consideration is as to what is the scope and meaning of the expression "for use.......in the manufacture..........of goods for sale" occurring in section 8 (3) (b) and in the declaration in Form C and Rule 13. Does it mean that the goods manufactured by a registered dealer by using the goods purchased against his Certificate of Registration and the declaration in Form C must be intended for sale by him or does it also include a case where goods are manufactured by a registered dealer for the third party under a job contract and the manufactured goods are intended for sale by such third party ? Now it is a well-settled rule of interpretation that a statute must be construed according to its plain language and neither should anything be added nor subtracted unless there are adequate grounds to justify the inference that the legislature clearly so intended. It was said more than seven decades ago by Lord Mersey in Thompson vs. Goold and Company:
Allahabad High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - R R Agarwal - Full Document

Punjab Distilling Industries, Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Simla on 21 February, 1962

(8) On the second question under reference Mr. Sikri merely said that in case the Court answered the first question in the negative and held in favour of the validity of section 2(6A)(d) of the Act, then the provision should be interpreted as if the words "of other than capital" were inserted in section 2(6A)(d) after the words 'any distribution. In other words, Mr. Sikri wants the Court to find that a casus omissus has really occurred in the statute through the inadvertence of the Legislature. I do not think that a casus omissus can be supplied by a Court, for that would amount to making laws. It is not the function of the Court to re-write a section or to amend a statutory provision with a view to translate the supposedly real intention of the framers of the Act, or on grounds of any inadvertence of the Legislature. I do not think, it is permissible to a Court to insert by implication any matter though to be erroneously left out by the Legislature as that would be construing an Act, but altering or amending it. It was observed by Lord Mersey in Thompson v. Goold and Co., 1910 AC 409 (420),--
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Parkash Textile Mills Ltd. vs Mani Lal And Ors. on 4 October, 1954

72. Nor is it a case of 'cansus omissus'. It has been held that "it is a strong thing to read into an Act of Parliament words which arc not there, and, in the absence of clear necessity it is a wrong thing to do." Per Lord Mersey in -- 'Thompson v. Goold & Co.', (1910) 79 LJ KB 905 (Z44) see also Lord Loreburn L. C. in -- 'Vickers Sons and Maxim Ltd. v. Evans', (1910) 79 LJ KB 054 (Z45).
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 79 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Jagdev Singh vs The Registrar, Co-Operative ... on 19 November, 1990

"It is a corollary to the general rule of literal construction that nothing is to be added to or taken from a statute unless there are adequate grounds to justify the inference that the legislature intended something which it omitted to express, Lord Mersey said `It is a strong thing to read into an Act of Parliament words which are not there, and in the absence of clear necessity it is a wrong thing to do'. (Thompson v. Goold & Co. (1910 AC 409). 'We are not entitled said Lord Lore burn L.C., to 'read words into an Act of Parliament unless clear reason for it is to be found within the four corners of .the Act itself.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 17 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next