Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.31 seconds)
Varsha Kapoor vs Uoi & Ors. on 3 June, 2010 cites

Dwarka Prasad vs Dwarka Das Saraf on 11 August, 1975

(b) Learned counsel proceeded to buttress his aforesaid submission by arguing that the main provision categorically limits the category of „respondent‟ within the confines of „adult male person‟. Once that is the clear and categorical definition provided to the term „respondent‟ in the main provision, the proviso has to take colour therefrom inasmuch as it cannot expand or limit the scope of the main provision. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dwarka Parsad Vs. Dwarka Das Saraf [AIR 1975 SC 1758], where following principle of law is laid down while interpreting a proviso:
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 207 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation And ... vs Nilaybhai R. Thakore And Another on 13 October, 1999

13. But then, Courts are not supposed to throw their hands up in the air expressing their helplessness. It becomes the duty of the Court go give correct interpretation to such a provision having regard to the purpose sought to be achieved by enacting a particular legislation. This so expressed by the Supreme Court in the case of Ahmedabad Municipal Corpn. Anr. Vs. Nilaybhai R. Thakore & Anr. [(1999) 8 SCC 139 in the following words:
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

M. Pentiah And Others vs Muddala Veeramallappa And Others on 7 November, 1960

This statement of law made by Lord Denning has been consistently followed by this Court starting in the case of M. Pentiah and Ors. v. Muddala Veeramallappa and Ors. : [1961]2SCR295 and followed as recently as in the case of S. Gopal Reddy v. Slate of Andhra Pradesh : 1996CriLJ3237 . Thus, following the above Rule of interpretation and with a view to iron out the creases in the impugned Rule which offends Article 14, we interpret Rule 7 as follows : "Local student means a student who has passed H.S.C./New S.S.C. examination and the qualifying examination from any of the High Schools or Colleges situated within the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation limits and includes a permanent resident student of Ahmedabad Municipality who acquires the above qualifications from any of the High School or College situated within Ahmedabad Urban Development Area."
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 290 - Full Document

S.Gopal Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 11 July, 1996

This statement of law made by Lord Denning has been consistently followed by this Court starting in the case of M. Pentiah and Ors. v. Muddala Veeramallappa and Ors. : [1961]2SCR295 and followed as recently as in the case of S. Gopal Reddy v. Slate of Andhra Pradesh : 1996CriLJ3237 . Thus, following the above Rule of interpretation and with a view to iron out the creases in the impugned Rule which offends Article 14, we interpret Rule 7 as follows : "Local student means a student who has passed H.S.C./New S.S.C. examination and the qualifying examination from any of the High Schools or Colleges situated within the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation limits and includes a permanent resident student of Ahmedabad Municipality who acquires the above qualifications from any of the High School or College situated within Ahmedabad Urban Development Area."
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 263 - M K Mukherjee - Full Document

Utkal Contractors & Joinery Private ... vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 7 May, 1987

511), the Apex Court categorically laid down that the legislature does not use any word unnecessarily. Every word or expression used in a stature ha a meaning, a reason and it cannot be devoid from its reason. Interpreting the statute without reason underlying it would be like "body without a soul". We may also usefully quote the following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Utkal Contractors and WP(Crl.) No.638 of 2010 Page 17 of 25 Joinery Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. State of Orissa and Ors. [(1987) 3 SCC 279]:
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 108 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Ajay Kant And Ors. vs Smt. Alka Sharma on 19 June, 2007

21. The Single Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Ajay Kant and Ors. Vs. Alka Sharma [2008 CrilJ 264] does not at all discuss the aforesaid provisions of the DV Act and parameters with which such a statute to be interpreted. We, therefore, are not in agreement with the aforesaid view of MP High Court. Apart from solitary view of Madhya Pradesh High Court, all other High Courts which have dealt with this issue have taken the view, which we have advanced in this judgment.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 58 - B M Gupta - Full Document
1   2 Next