Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 65 (2.19 seconds)
Documents citing Ms. Eera Through Dr. Manjula ... vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 21 July, 2017

Navnit Raj vs The Union Of India on 21 February, 2024

30. Regard being had to the modern trend of authorities referred to in the concurring judgment in Eera [Eera v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 15 SCC 133: (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 588], we need not be afraid of each Judge having a free play to put forth his own interpretation as he likes. Any arbitrary interpretation, as opposed to fair interpretation, of a Statute, keeping the object of the legislature in mind, would be outside the judicial ken. The task of a Judge, when he looks at the literal language of the Statute as well as the object and purpose of the Statute, is not to interpret the provision as he likes but is to interpret the provision keeping in mind Parliament's language and the object that Parliament had in mind. With this caveat, it is clear that Judges are not knight-errants free to roam around in the interpretative world doing as each Judge likes. They are bound by the text of the Statute, together with the context in which the Statute is enacted; and both text and context are Parliaments', and not what the Judge thinks the Statute has been enacted for. Also, it is clear that for the reasons stated by us above, a fair construction of Section 9(3)(c), in consonance with the object sought to be achieved by the Code, would lead to the conclusion that it cannot be construed as a threshold bar or a condition precedent as has been contended by Dr Singhvi.' Patna High Court CWJC No.17595 of 2023 dt.21-02-2024
Patna High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - S Kumar - Full Document

The Project Director National Highways ... vs M. Hakeem on 20 July, 2021

45. “Purposive construction” of statutes, relevant in the present context, is referred to in a recent concurring judgment by Nariman, 44 J. in Eera v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 15 SCC 133, as the theory of “creative interpretation”. However, even “creative interpretation” has its limits, which have been laid down in the aforesaid judgment as follows: -
Supreme Court of India Cites 72 - Cited by 299 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Rajan S/O Rajendra ... Applicant (In ... vs State Of Uttarakhand on 11 June, 2021

24. Hence, the aforesaid judgment of Eera (Supra) provided that the concept of mental age or stage of child, cannot be read in by the Court in order to defeat the very object of the legislation to provide remedy for the malady, while the legislature intends to protect of the minor from the commission of the criminal offences, and hence, that is why, the age has to be strictly construed; as to be below 18 years, and for the said purposes, it has been rightly argued by the learned Government Advocate that the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act of 2000, and the Rules framed thereunder, since has been saved by Sub- section (2) of Section 2 of the POCSO Act of 2012, the determination of age, would be on the basis of the provisions of the Rules also as it has been framed under the Juvenile Justice Act of 2000.
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - S K Sharma - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next