Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 34 (2.71 seconds)

Shri Mahila Griha Udyog Lijjat Papad vs Arunaben Arvindbhai Chaudhary on 12 February, 2020

"The legal position may be summarized thus : The maxim contemporanea expositio as laid down by Coke was applied to construing ancient statutes but not to interpreting Acts which are comparatively modern. There is a good reason for this change in the mode of interpretation. The fundamental rule of construction is the same whether the Court is asked to construe a provision of an ancient statute or that of a modem one, namely, what is the expressed intention of the Legislature. It is perhaps difficult to attribute to a legislative body functioning in a static society that its intention was couched in terms of considerable breadth so as to take within its sweep the future developments comprehended by the phraseology used.. It is more reasonable to confine its intention only to the circumstances obtaining at the time the law was made. But in a modern progressive society it would be unreasonable to confine the intention of a Legislature to the meaning attributable to the word used at the time the law was made, for a modern Legislature making laws to govern a society which is fast moving must be presumed to be aware of an enlarged meaning the same concept might attract with the march of time and with the revolutionary changes brought about in social, economic, political and scientific and other fields of human activity. Indeed, unless a contrary intention Page 55 of 62 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 14 04:15:30 IST 2020 C/SCA/19618/2019 JUDGMENT appears, an interpretation should be given to the words used to take in new facts and situations, if the words are capable of comprehending them."
Gujarat High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - S G Gokani - Full Document

Md. Enamul Hasan vs The Union Of India on 22 December, 2020

The maxim contemporanea expositio as laid down by Coke was applied to construing ancient statutes but not to interpreting Acts which are comparatively modern. There is a good reason for this change in the mode of interpretation. The fundamental rule of construction is the same whether the Court is asked to construe a provision of an ancient statute or that of a modern one, namely, what is the expressed intention of the Legislature. It is perhaps difficult to attribute to a legislative body functioning in a static society that its intention was couched in terms of considerable breadth so as to take within its sweep the future developments comprehended by the phraseology used. It is more reasonable to confine its intention only to the circumstances obtaining at the time the law was made. But in a modern progressive society it would be unreasonable to confine the intention of a Legislature to the meaning attributable to the word used at the time the law was made, for a modern Legislature making laws to govern a society which is fast moving must be presumed to be aware of an enlarged meaning the same concept might attract with the march of time and with the revolutionary changes brought Patna High Court CR. WJC No.367 of 2020 dt.22-12-2020 60/68 about in social, economic, political and scientific and other fields of human activity. Indeed, unless a contrary intention appears, an interpretation should be given to the words used to take in new facts and situations, if the words are capable of comprehending them."
Patna High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - R R Prasad - Full Document

Md. Rizwan Alam (Secretary Jama Masjid ... vs The State Of Bihar on 18 December, 2020

The maxim contemporanea expositio as laid down by Coke was applied to construing ancient statutes but not to interpreting Acts which are comparatively modern. There is a good reason for this change in the mode of interpretation. The fundamental rule of construction is the same whether the Court is asked to construe a provision of an ancient statute or that of a modern one, namely, what is the expressed intention of the Legislature. It is perhaps difficult to attribute to a legislative body functioning in a static society that its intention was couched in terms of considerable breadth so as to take within its sweep the future developments comprehended by the phraseology used. It is more reasonable to confine its intention only to the circumstances obtaining at the time the law was made. But in a modern progressive society it would be unreasonable to confine the intention of a Legislature to the meaning attributable to the word used at the time the law was made, for a modern Legislature making laws to govern a society which is fast moving must be presumed to be aware of an enlarged meaning the same concept might attract with the march of time and with the revolutionary changes brought Patna High Court CR. WJC No.367 of 2020 dt.22-12-2020 60/68 about in social, economic, political and scientific and other fields of human activity. Indeed, unless a contrary intention appears, an interpretation should be given to the words used to take in new facts and situations, if the words are capable of comprehending them."
Patna High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - R R Prasad - Full Document

Pepsico India Holding P.Ltd. vs Grocery Markets & Shops Board . on 12 February, 2016

27. That the expression “grocery” in 2005, when the Act was sought to be applied to the appellant company, would include soft drinks manufactured by the appellant company and bottled water as daily household goods among the middle class and rich sections of society, was not seriously contested by Shri Giri. The argument that we should find the meaning of the expression “grocery” on the date on which the Act was extended to the area in which the appellant company’s factory was situate is fallacious in law. This Court in The Senior Electric Inspector and others v. Laxmi Narayan Chopra and others, 1962 (3) S.C.R. 146, when confronted with a similar argument to that made by Shri Giri, repelled the said argument in the following terms:
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - R F Nariman - Full Document

All Kerala Online Lottery Dealers Ass. vs State Of Kerala . on 5 November, 2015

“The legal position may be summarized thus:-The maxim contemporanea expositio as laid down by Coke was applied to construing ancient statutes but not to interpreting Acts which are comparatively modern. There is a good reason for this change in the mode of interpretation. The fundamental rule of construction is the same whether the court is asked to construe a provision of an ancient statute or that of a modern one, namely, what is the expressed intention of the Legislature. It is perhaps difficult to attribute to a legislative body functioning in astatic society that its intention was couched in terms of considerable breadth so as to take within its sweep the future development comprehended by the phraseology used. It is more reasonable to confine its intention only to the circumstances obtaining at the time the law was made. But in a modern progressive society it would be unreasonable to confine the intention of a Legislature to the meaning attributable to the modern Legislature to the meaning attributable to the modern Legislature making laws to govern a society which is fast moving must be presumed to be aware of an enlarged meaning the same concept might attract with the march of time and with the revolutionary changes brought about in social, economic, political and scientific and other field of human activity. Indeed, unless a contrary intention appears, an interpretation should be given to the words used to take in new facts and situations, if the words are capable of comprehending them.”
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - R K Agrawal - Full Document

I.T.C. Ltd. And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 24 December, 1987

21. Mr. A. K. Ganguly the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue submitted that the principle of contemporaneous exposition in an extraordinary aid to the interpretation of only ancient statute and which has no application to interpretation of modern statute and in support of this contention reliance was placed on behalf of the revenue, on the decision of the Supreme Court of India in (a) Senior Electric Inspectors v. Laxminarayan Chopra, ; (b) Raja Ram Jaiswal v. State of Bihar, and also upon the decision in the case of Governors of the Campbell College, Belfast v. Commr. of Valuation of Northern Ireland, reported in (1964) 2 All ER 705 at p. 725 and also relied on certain passages from some other text books corpus juris secondum. In those cases it was held that the principle of contemporaneous exposition applied only to the interpretation of ancient statute and not to the enactment which are comparatively modern. It was further submitted that this principle had no application to the interpretation of an exemption notification since until seizure of documents from various parts of India, it was not known to the revenue that the retail price of cigarette was different from the printed price on the packages. In other words, it was not known to the assessing authority concerned that the petitioner deliberately printed a lower price as retail sale price of the cigarette for the purpose of deliberately paying a lower duty for getting maximum benefit under the exemption notification.
Calcutta High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Mohd. Ataur Rahman vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 19 December, 1988

Apart from that, as observed by Subba Rao, J., upon a review of all the decisions on the Joint, in an earlier decision of this Court in the Senior Electric Inspector v. Laxmi Narayan Chopra , the maxim contemporance expositio laid down by coke was applied in construing ancient statutes but not to interpreting Acts which are comparatively modern. Further, it has been observed that in a modern progressive society it would be unreasonable to confine the intention of a Legislature to the meaning attributable to the word used at the time the law was made and unless a contrary intention appears, an interpretation should be given to the words used to take in new facts and situations, if the words are capable of comprehending them.
Patna High Court Cites 112 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next