Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 104 (1.72 seconds)
Documents citing Rustom & Hornsby (1) Ltd vs T. B. Kadam on 24 July, 1975

Y.P. Mahna vs Bharat Television on 13 October, 1993

76. It has been argued (para 34 of the majority order at page 296 supra) that as a recognised rule of interpretation the remedial statutes ought to be construed liberally and the rule against retrospectivity should be applied with less insistence in respect thereof. Support in this behalf is sought from the decisions cited in Bharat Singh v. New Delhi Tuberculosis Centre [1986] 69 FJR 129 ; AIR 1986 SC 842, Ruston and Hornsby (India) Ltd. v. T. B. Kadam, AIR 1975 SC 2025 and Sree Bank Ltd, v. S. D. Roy and Co., AIR 1966 SC 1953. I am afraid, the so-called liberal construction does not in any way affect the established maxim pertaining to retrospective-operation of statutes. These cases are concerned with interpretation of certain provisions appearing in different enactments. I need not discuss all these rulings which proceed on the express language used and the circumstances just preceding and succeeding the particular enactment in question.
Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission Cites 23 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Principal, Mayo College vs Labour Court on 21 August, 1987

In Huston and Hornsby (I) Ltd. v. T.B. Kadam (supra), the Supreme Court has had the occasion to consider this aspect. It was argued that the order of dismissal was made on 7th January 1984, and as Section 2A of the Act came into force on 1st December, 1985, the reference was bad. It was argued that it will amount to giving retrospective effect to the provisions of Section 2A, but the Supreme Court did not accept this contention, as Section 2A is a definition section.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 15 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Arun Kumar vs The Singhbhum Central Co Operative Bank ... on 17 April, 2017

Similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Ruston & Hornsby (I)   Ltd. v. T.B. Kadam, U.P. SRTC v. Basudeo Chaudhary, Janatha Bazar   (South   Kanara   Central   Coop.   Wholesale   Stores   Ltd.)   v.   Sahakari   Noukarara Sangha, Karnataka SRTC v. B.S. Hullikatti and Rajasthan   SRTC v. Ghanshyam Sharma."
Jharkhand High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - D N Patel - Full Document

M/S. Global Marine Agencies vs Cc (Prev.), Jaipur on 9 August, 2012

[Ref: Ruston & Hornsby (I) Ltd. v. T.B. Kadam - (1976) 3 SCC 71; U.P. SRTC v. Basudeo Chaudhary - (1997) 11 SCC 370; Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central Coop. Wholesale Stores Ltd.) v. Sahakari Noukarara Sangha - (2000) 7 SCC 517; Karnataka SRTC v. B.S. Hullikatti - (2001) 2 SCC 574; Rajasthan SRTC v. Ghanshyam Sharma - (2002) 10 SCC 330; Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh v. Krishnan Behari - (1996) 2 SCC 714; U.P. SRTC v. Suresh Chand Sharma - (2010) 6 SCC 555; J.A. Naiksatam v. Prothonotary & Senior Master, High Court of Bombay - (2004) 8 SCC 653; Union of India v. Gyan Chand Chattar (2009) 12 SCC 78; NEKRTC v. H. Amaresh - (2006) 6 SCC 187; U.P. SRTC v. Vinod Kumar - (2008) 1 SCC 115].
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next