Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.71 seconds)State vs . Krishan & Ors. on 28 April, 2009
State vs . Krishan & Ors. on 26 July, 2016
Subhash And Another vs State Of U.P. And 12 Others on 10 July, 2025
3. As no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending, the writ petition is being disposed of, at the admission stage, without calling for counter affidavit or issuing notice to private respondents, with a direction upon respondent No.2 to decide Restoration Application filed by the petitioners in Case No.00460/2018, Computerized Case No. D201805440000460 (Subhash and others Vs. Gamha and others) under section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, in accordance with law, after hearing all affected parties, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Krishan Alias Krishan Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 October, 2025
7. Keeping in mind the position of law and facts, circumstances of the case, chargesheet dated 10.12.2019 along with cognizance order dated 23.12.2021 and entire criminal proceedings of Case No.1428 of 2012 (State Vs. Krishan and others), arising out of Case Crime No.343 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 354-B, 452, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Civil Lines, District Meerut, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no.5, Meerut, are hereby quashed.
Ravi Bus Service And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 27 July, 2001
31. There may be some substance in the submissions made by Mr. Vyas as not even a word in a Statute has to be construed as surplusage. Nor can it be rendered ineffective or purposeless. Courts are required to carry out the legislative intent fully and completely. While construing a provision, full effect is to be given to the language used therein, giving reference to the context and other provisions of the Statute, By construction, provision should not be reduced as a "dead letter" or "useless lumber. An interpretation which renders a provision an exercise in futility, should be avoided, otherwise, it would mean that enacting such a provision in subordinate legislation was" an exercise in futility" and the product came as a "purposeless piece" of legislation and provision had been enacted without any purpose and entire exercise to enact such a provision was "most unwarranted besides being uncharitable". (Vide M.V. Elisabeth and Ors. v. Harwan Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd. (55); Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Price Water-house and Anr. (56); Martin Burn Ltd. v. Corporation of Calcutta (57); Patel Chunibhai Dejibhai v. Narayanrao K. Jambekar and Anr. (58); Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand Jain (59); State of Bihar v. Bihar Distillery Ltd. and Ors. (60); South Central Railway Employees Co-operative Credit Society Employees' Union, Secunderabad v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Ors. (61); Subash Chander Sharma v. State of Punjab and Ors. (62) and K. Duraisamy and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. (63).
Dr. Jagdish Jugtawat vs Smt. Manjulata And Ors. on 25 October, 2000
32. The question, thus, arises whether under the provisions of Section 125, Cr.P.C, a relief can be extended to a daughter not suffering from mental/physical abnormality beyond the date of attaining her majority ? If she is allowed to have maintenance upto the date of marriage, the word 'minor' which has been defined by giving reference to the provisions of Majority Act, 1875, would be reduced to otiose and such an interpretation is not permissible, nor it is permissible by judicial interpretation that any word can be added or subtracted. [Vide A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27; Ashwani Kumar Ghose and Anr. v. Arbindo Bose and Anr., AIR 1952 SC 369; State of Bihar v. Hira Lal Kejriwal and Ors., AIR 1960 SC 47; Shyam Kishori Devi v. Patna Municipal Corporation, AIR 1966 SC 1678; Patel Chunibhai Dajibha v Narayanrao K. Jambekar and Anr., AIR 1965 SC 1457; Sultan Begum v. Prem Chand Jain, (1997) 1 SCC 373; South Central Railway Employees Cooperative Society Employees Union, Secunderabad v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Ors., (1998) 2 SCC 570=II (1998) SLT 273; and Subhash Chander Sharma and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors., (1999) 5 SCC 171 =V (1999) SLT 198].
Bhoodev Singh Son Of Sri Karan Singh And ... vs Chairman, Uttar Pradesh State ... on 31 January, 2006
41. No word can be rendered ineffective or purposeless. Courts are required to carry out the legislative intent fully and completely. While construing a provision, full effect is to be given to the language used therein, giving reference to the context and other provisions of the Statute. By construction, a provision should not be reduced as a "dead letter" or "useless lumber. An interpretation which renders a provision an exercise in futility, should be avoided, otherwise it would mean that enacting such a provision in legislation was " an exercise in futility" and the product came as a "purposeless piece" of legislation and provision had been enacted without any purpose and entire exercise to enact such a provision was "most unwarranted' besides being uncharitable." (Vide Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi v. The State of Bombay ; R.G. Jacob v. Republic of
India ; Patel Chunibhai Dajibha v. Narayanrao Khanderao Jambekar and Anr. ; Anandji Haridas & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Engineering Mazdoor Sangh and Anr. ; The Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Madanlal Dan & Sons,
Bareilly ; Annapurna Biscuit Manufacturing Co., Kanpur v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P.
Lucknow ; Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh,
Hyderabad ; M.V. Elisabeth and Ors. v. Harwan Investment & Trading Pvt. Ltd., Hanoekar House, Swatontapeth, Vasco-De-Gama,
Goa ; Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Price Waterhouse and Anr. ; Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand
Jain ; State of Bihar and Ors. v. Bihar Distillery Ltd. and Ors. ; South Central Railway Employees Co-operative Credit Society Employees' Union, Secunderabad v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Ors. ; Subash Chander Sharma and Anr. v. State of Punjab and
Ors. ; Bharathidasan University and Anr. v. All India Council for Technical Education and
Ors. AIR 2001 SC 2861; and The Mor Modern Co-operative Transport Society Ltd. v. Financial Commissioner & "Secretary to Govt., Haryana and Anr. ).
Dr. Dinesh Sharma vs Additional District Judge And Ors. on 24 May, 2007
Swatontapeth, Vasco-De-Gama, Goa ; Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Price Waterhouse and Anr. ; Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand Jain ; State of Bihar and Ors. v. Bihar Distillery Ltd. and Ors. ; South Central Railway Employees Co-operative Credit Society Employees' Union, Secunderabad v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Ors. ; Subash Chander Sharma and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors. ; Bharathidasan University and Anr. v. All India Council for Technical Education and Ors. AIR 2001 SC 2861 and Mor Modern Cooperative Transport Society Ltd. v. Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government. Haryana and Anr. ).
State Of Maharashtra vs Haresh Mohandas Rajput on 11 January, 2008
40. Lastly, the learned Counsel for the accused placed her reliance on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Subhash Chandar v. Krishan Lal and Ors. 2001 CRI.L.J.1825, wherein it paragraph 17, it is observed that;