Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.32 seconds)

Jagmohan Arora vs Saroj Arora on 8 July, 2011

In Kehari Singh v. State of U.P. and another, 2005 Crl. L.J. 2330, it was held that people in such miserable conditions due to unavoidable conditions may not be able to attend the Court proceedings on every date fixed there to pursue their cases. In such situations, if it is held that the Court lacks the jurisdiction to restore the cases in absence of such provisions, the very object and purpose of the legislation would be frustrated. The paramount rule of interpretation, which overrides the others is that the Statute is to be expounded according to the intent of the think that made it. Therefore, even if there is any lacuna in the Statute, then also it is the obligation on the Crl. M.C. 377/2010 Page 9 of 10 Magistrate to give effect to the will of the Legislature by a judicial order. Thus, the learned Magistrate is empowered to restore the proceedings initiated under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which were dismissed for non appearance of the complainant/applicant.
Delhi High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 3 - M Gupta - Full Document

Lavinder Pal Singh vs Mohinder Kaur & Ors on 22 February, 2012

12. An identical question came to be decided by a Division Bench of this Court in case Smt.Kamla Devi and ors. v. Mehma Singh 1989(1) P.L.R.487 and Allahabad High Court in case Kehari Singh v. State of U.P. and another 2005(3) RCR (Criminal) 690. Having interpreted the relevant provisions, it was ruled that "the Magistrate has the power to restore the maintenance petition." The ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments "mutatis mutandis" is applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - M S Sullar - Full Document

Jasbir Singh vs Kiran on 11 October, 2012

In Kehari Singh versus State of U.P. and another, 2005 Crl. L.J., 2330, it was held that people in such miserable conditions due to unavoidable conditions may not be able to attend the Court proceedings on every date fixed there to pursue their cases. In such situations, if it is held that the Court lacks the jurisdiction to restore the cases in absence of such provisions, the very object and purpose of the legislation would be frustrated. The paramount rule of interpretation of provisions, which overrides the others is that the Statute is to be expounded according to the intent of the authority that made it. Therefore, even if there is any lacuna in the Statute, then also it is the obligation on the part of the Magistrate to give effect to the will of the Legislature by a judicial order. Thus, the learned Magistrate is empowered to restore the proceedings initiated under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which were dismissed for non-appearance of the complainant/applicant.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - P Singh - Full Document

Harbilas vs Balbir Kaur on 7 August, 2018

In Kehari Singh versus State of U.P. and another, 2005 Crl. L.J., 2330, it was held that people in such miserable conditions due to unavoidable conditions may not be able to attend the Court proceedings on every date fixed there to pursue their cases. In such situations, if it is held that the Court lacks the jurisdiction to restore the cases in absence of such provisions, the very object and purpose of the legislation would be frustrated. The paramount rule of interpretation of provisions, which overrides the others is that the Statute is to be expounded according to the intent of the authority that made it. Therefore, even if there is any lacuna in the Statute, then also it is the obligation on the part of the Magistrate to give effect to the will of the Legislature by a judicial order. Thus, the learned Magistrate is empowered to restore the proceedings initiated under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which were dismissed for non-appearance of the complainant/applicant.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - A Chaudhry - Full Document
1