Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.39 seconds)
D.V.V. Satya Prasad And Ors. vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. ... on 16 November, 1995
cites
The States Reorganisation Act, 1956
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 11 in Andhra Pradesh Co-Operative Societies Act, 1964 [Entire Act]
Kamal Kanti Dutta And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 23 April, 1980
The Supreme Court in Reserve Bank of India's case,6 also cited with approval an earlier precedent in Kamal Kanti v. Union of India, , wherein it was held that in matters like formulation of seniority lists, justice should be ensured to as many as possible and injustice to as few and "it was not safe to test the constitutionality of a service rule on the touch-stone of fortunes of individuals".
Tirath Singh vs Bachittar Singh And Others on 15 September, 1955
It was not the intention of the legislature to effect such transfer. Neither the context nor the other provisions of Section 11 envisage such an incongruity. In a situation where the ordinary meaning of grammatical construction of a statute leads to absurdity, at variance with the manifest purpose of the enactment, it should be construed in a manner consistent with the intention of the legislature or the enactment. The well established rule as slated in Maxwell's Interpretation of Statutes and followed by our Supreme Court in Tirath Singh v. Bachittar Singh, , while interpreting Section 99 of the Representation of the People Act reads:
V.T. Khanzode & Ors vs Reserve Bank Of India & Anr on 5 March, 1982
The validity of the combined seniority of the officers in each of the separate groups was in issue in that case.