Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 43 (0.35 seconds)
Prakash Munjal Aged About 72 Years vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 May, 2026 cites

Meghmala & Ors vs G.Narasimha Reddy & Ors on 16 August, 2010

It was argued that the entire claim of the writ petitioners is founded upon fraudulent and void transactions in violation of the CNT Act, 1908, and that mutation entries or issuance of rent receipts pursuant to W.P.(C) No. 5100 of 2004 do not confer any title or possession. Reliance was placed on Meghmala v. G. Narasimha Reddy8 to submit that no relief can be granted to perpetuate fraud.
Supreme Court of India Cites 47 - Cited by 311 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Pandey Orson vs Ram Chander Sahu And Others on 18 July, 1991

In Pandey Oraon v. Ram Chander Sahu the term "transfer" as used in Section 71-A of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, came up for the consideration of the Court. "Transfer" was not defined in the Act. It was held that considering the situation in which the exercise of jurisdiction is contemplated, it would not be proper to confine the meaning of "transfer" to transfer under the Transfer of Property Act or a situation where "transfer" has a statutory definition. What exactly is contemplated by "transfer" in Section 71-A is where possession has passed from one to another and as a physical fact the member of the Scheduled Tribe who is entitled to hold possession has lost it and a non-member has come into possession, would be covered by "transfer". Their Lordships observed: (SCC p. 80, para 7) "7. The provision is beneficial and the legislative intention is to extend protection to a class of citizens who are not in a position to keep their property to themselves in the absence of protection. Therefore when the legislature is extending special protection to the named category, the court has to give a liberal construction to the protective mechanism which would work out the protection and enable the sphere of protection to be effective than limit by (sic) the scope."
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 51 - Full Document

Manchegowda Etc vs State Of Karnataka Etc on 17 April, 1984

Their Lordships referred to three earlier decisions of this Court, namely, Manchegowda v. State of Karnataka3, Lingappa Pochanna Appelwar v. State of Maharashtra4, Gamini Krishnayya v. Guraza Seshachalam5 and a decision of the House of Lords in D (a minor) v. Berkshire County Council6 laying down the proposition that a broad and liberal construction should be given to give full effect to the legislative purpose.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 125 - A N Sen - Full Document

Lingappa Pochanna Appelwar And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr. Etc on 4 December, 1984

Their Lordships referred to three earlier decisions of this Court, namely, Manchegowda v. State of Karnataka3, Lingappa Pochanna Appelwar v. State of Maharashtra4, Gamini Krishnayya v. Guraza Seshachalam5 and a decision of the House of Lords in D (a minor) v. Berkshire County Council6 laying down the proposition that a broad and liberal construction should be given to give full effect to the legislative purpose.
Supreme Court of India Cites 57 - Cited by 113 - A P Sen - Full Document

Gamini Krishnayya And Others vs Curza Seshachalam And Others on 31 August, 1964

Their Lordships referred to three earlier decisions of this Court, namely, Manchegowda v. State of Karnataka3, Lingappa Pochanna Appelwar v. State of Maharashtra4, Gamini Krishnayya v. Guraza Seshachalam5 and a decision of the House of Lords in D (a minor) v. Berkshire County Council6 laying down the proposition that a broad and liberal construction should be given to give full effect to the legislative purpose.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 20 - J R Mudholkar - Full Document

State Of Maharashtra vs Reliance Industries Ltd.. on 15 September, 2017

25. It is well settled that whenever a definition clause uses the word "includes", it is so done in order to enlarge the meaning of the words or phrases occurring in the body of the statute, and when it is so used, these words of phrases must be construed as comprehending, not only such things which they signify according to their natural import, but also those things with the interpretation declare that they shall include [see State of Maharashtra v. Reliance Industries Ltd.,14 (paras 21 and 22)].
Supreme Court of India Cites 75 - Cited by 3 - A Mishra - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next