Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.90 seconds)
Documents citing Nippon Yusen Kaisha vs Ramjiban Serowgee on 11 March, 1938

Leukoplast (India) Ltd. vs State Of Goa on 3 February, 1988

There is no need of any authority to support the above proposition but if any is necessary, the observations of the Privy Council in Nippon Yusan Kaisha v. Ramjibai Serowgee that it is always dangerous to seek to construe one Statue by reference to the words of another will suffice. But if this is true and correct, it may be also pointed out that this is not an absolute principle of law. Generally it is so, but in a given case, the definition given in a particular Statute, not being repugnant, may be used to construe and interpret the same expression occurring in another statute. The learned Advocate General is further right in his submission that inasmuch as the Excise Law is concerned, it is the understanding which a product has in trade or popularly that counts.
Bombay High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 24 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central-I vs Steelcrete (P.) Ltd. on 6 September, 1981

3, 2nd Edn., 1969, by John B. Saunders at p. 160. Similarly reliance was placed on Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Edn., Vol. 24, p. 145, Article 265. On behalf of the assessee , however, reliance was placed on the observations made by the Judicial Committee in the case of Nippon Yusen Kaisha v, Ramjiban Serowgee, AIR 1938 PC 152 and our attention was drawn to the observations appearing at p. 155, where, Lord Wright had observed as follows :
Calcutta High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 10 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Kamalesh Kumar Sheth vs The Inspector Of Police on 3 November, 2015

"However, it is not a sound principle of construction to interpret expressions used in one Act with reference to their use in another Act, and decisions rendered with reference to construction of one Act cannot be applied with reference to the provisions of another Act, when the two Acts are not in pari materia (Nippon Yusen Kisha v. Ramjiban Serowgee, AIR 1938 PC 152)."
Madras High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - P N Prakash - Full Document

The Province Of Bihar vs Rai Shambhu Lal Bose And Another. on 15 January, 1947

Our attention was drawn to the provisions of Section 9 (1) (v) of the Indian Income-tax Act which provides that any amount paid on account of land revenue in respect of the property shall be deducted from the assessable income under the heading "property". It was, therefore, argued that where the legislature intended to confine the word "revenue" to land revenue, it has been distinctly stated in the relevant enactment. But this argument suffers from the same defect which I have pointed out above, namely that it seeks to enlarge the ambit of the word "revenue" in Section 6 (a) of the Act by reference to the ambit of the word "revenue" in another Act. I am concerned to construe the meaning of the word "revenue" in the present Act and cannot be guided by what has been provided in some other Act. It is always dangerous to seek to construe one statute by a reference to the words of another : per Lord Wright in Nippon Yusen Kaisha v. Ramjiban Serowgee. For these reasons the answers to the questions are as follows :-
Patna High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1