The State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others vs Babu Ram Upadhya on 25 November, 1960
17. A Constitution Bench of this Court in State of U.P. v. Babu Ram Upadhya [AIR 1961 SC 751] decided the issue observing:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.50 seconds)P.T. Rajan vs T.P.M. Sahir And Ors on 26 September, 2003
53. The question as to whether a statute is mandatory or directory would depend upon the statutory scheme. It is now well known that use of the expression shall or may by itself is not decisive. The court while construing a statute must consider all relevant factors including the purpose and object the statute seeks to achieve. (see P.T.Rajan v. T.P.M.Sahir and U.P.SEB v. Shiv Mohan Singh).
Ashok Lanka & Anr vs Rishi Dixit & Ors on 11 May, 2005
In Ashok Lanka v. Rishi Dixit reported in 2005 (5) SCC 598, para No.53 is relevant, which reads as under:-
U.P. State Electricity Board vs Shri Shiv Mohan Singh And Anr on 1 October, 2004
130. This Court in the case of Devinder Singh (supra) held that the Land Acquisition Act is an expropriatory legislation and followed the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation v. Darius Shapur Chennai and Ors. [(2005) 7 SCC 627]. Therefore, it should be construed strictly. The Court has also taken the view that even in cases of directory requirements, substantial compliance with such provision would be necessary.
M/S Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. ... vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 18 August, 2011
In Delhi Airtech Services (P) Ltd., v. State of U.P., reported in 2011 (9) SCC 354, one of the substantial questions of law framed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, was whether the provisions of Section 17(3-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, is mandatory or directory and whether non-compliance of the same, would vitiate the entire land acquisition proceedings, even when the land had already vested in the State, in terms of Section 17(1) of the Act. Due to the divergent views expressed by the Hon'ble Judges, the matter has been referred to a larger Bench. However, the decisions considered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar, are worth consideration, in this case,
117. In `Principles of Statutory Interpretation', 12th Edition, 2010, Justice G.P. Singh, at page 389 states as follows:
May George vs Special Tahsildar & Ors on 25 May, 2010
120. Reference can be made to the following paragraphs of May George (supra) :
Dattatreya Moreshwar Pangarkar vs The State Of Bombay And Others on 27 March, 1952
In Dattatraya Moreshwar v. The State of Bombay and Ors. [AIR 1952 SC 181], this Court observed that law which creates public duties is directory but if it confers private rights it is mandatory. Relevant passage from this judgment is quoted below:
Shri B.S. Khurana And Others vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And ... on 21 September, 2000
In B.S.Khuna and Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors. [(2000) 7 SCC 679], this Court considered the provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, particularly those dealing with transfer of immovable property owned by the Municipal Corporation. After considering the scheme of the Act for the purpose of transferring the property belonging to the Corporation, the Court held that the Commissioner could alienate the property only on obtaining the prior sanction of the Corporation and this condition was held to be mandatory for the reason that the effect of non-observance of the statutory prescription would vitiate the transfer though no specific power had been conferred upon the Corporation to transfer the property.
State Of Haryana vs Raghubir Dayal on 10 November, 1994
In State of Haryana and Anr. v. Raghubir Dayal [(1995) 1 SCC 133], this Court has observed as under:
R. Lalithambal vs J. Stanly Jones on 7 August, 2009
126. The basic purpose of interpretation of statutes is further to aid in determining either the general object of the legislation or the meaning of the language in any particular provision. It is obvious that the intention which appears to be most in accordance with convenience, reason, justice and legal principles should, in all cases of doubtful interpretation, be presumed to be the true one. The intention to produce an unreasonable result is not to be imputed to a statute. On the other hand, it is not impermissible, but rather is acceptable, to adopt a more reasonable construction and avoid anomalous or unreasonable construction. A sense of the possible injustice of an interpretation ought not to induce Judges to do violence to the well settled rules of construction, but it may properly lead to the selection of one, rather than the other, of the two reasonable interpretations. In earlier times, statutes imposing criminal or other penalties were required to be construed narrowly in favour of the person proceeded against and were more rigorously applied. The Courts were to see whether there appeared any reasonable doubt or ambiguity in construing the relevant provisions. Right from the case of R. v. Jones, ex p. Daunton [1963(1) WLR 270], the basic principles state that even statutes dealing with jurisdiction and procedural law are, if they relate to infliction of penalties, to be strictly construed; compliance with the procedures will be stringently exacted from those proceedings against the person liable to be penalized and if there is any ambiguity or doubt, it will be resolved in favour of the accused/such person. These principles have been applied with approval by different courts even in India. Enactments relating to procedure in courts are usually construed as imperative. A kind of duty is imposed on court or a public officer when no general inconvenience or injustice is caused from different construction. A provision of a statute may impose an absolute or qualified duty upon a public officer which itself may be a relevant consideration while understanding the provision itself.