Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.27 seconds)Article 224 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 217 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
N.Kannadasan vs Ajoy Khose & Ors on 6 May, 2009
15. This, however, cannot provide justification for the Court,
while interpreting the provisions of Article 220, to re-write a
constitutional provision. Where the Constitution has specifically
confined the prohibition on the right to practise before the same
High Court only to a person who has held office as a permanent
Judge of the High Court, there would be no reason or justification
for the Court to introduce such a restraint by a process of judicial
interpretation upon Additional Judges . The view which we have
placed on the plain language of Article 220 also accords with the
observations of the Supreme Court in N. Kannadasan vs. Ajoy
Khose (supra). In that case, the Supreme Court considered the
provisions of Section 16 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
which provides that the State Commission shall consist of a person
who is or has been a Judge of the High Court. The Supreme Court
was of the view that the suitability of a person to be considered for
appointment as a Chairman of a State Commission, having regard
to Article 217 of the Constitution, would mean those Judges who
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:43:30 :::
VBC 21/24 PIL90.12-2.7
have retired from service without any blemish whatsoever and not
that merely a person who has been a Judge would be eligible for
appointment. Significantly, in two observations in paragraphs 41
and 45 of the judgment, the Supreme Court noticed the distinction
between an additional Judge and a permanent Judge of the High
Court. In paragraph 41, the Supreme Court observed as follows :
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
S.P. Gupta vs Union Of India & Anr on 30 December, 1981
14. The provisions of Article 224 of the Constitution as they
were amended in 1956, were intended to allow the appointment of
an Additional Judge to a High Court where it was necessary to deal
with a temporary increase in the business of a High Court. Since
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:43:30 :::
VBC 19/24 PIL90.12-2.7
the decision in S.P.Gupta vs. Union of India,6 the Supreme Court
has taken note of the fact that since 1956, the true intendment
and purpose of Article 224(1) has not been carried into effect.
Section 222 in Government of India Act, 1935 [Entire Act]
Nathi Devi vs Radha Devi Gupta on 17 December, 2004
The legislative history reinforces
why it is but necessary that the Court must adopt a plain and
ordinary connotation of the words used in Article 220. Besides,
where the words of a statutory provision are clear, plain and
unambiguous, the duty of the Court is to attribute to them their
plain, ordinary and literal meaning. The Court cannot, it is well
settled, obviate a recourse to the literal and plain meaning of the
words used merely on the basis of consequences which the Court
does not consider to be appropriate. (Nelson Motis vs. Union of
India2; Gurudevdatta VKSSS Maryadit vs. State of
Maharashtra3; and Nathi Devi Vs. Radha Devi Gupta4).
Gurudevdatta Vksss Maryadit & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 22 March, 2001
The legislative history reinforces
why it is but necessary that the Court must adopt a plain and
ordinary connotation of the words used in Article 220. Besides,
where the words of a statutory provision are clear, plain and
unambiguous, the duty of the Court is to attribute to them their
plain, ordinary and literal meaning. The Court cannot, it is well
settled, obviate a recourse to the literal and plain meaning of the
words used merely on the basis of consequences which the Court
does not consider to be appropriate. (Nelson Motis vs. Union of
India2; Gurudevdatta VKSSS Maryadit vs. State of
Maharashtra3; and Nathi Devi Vs. Radha Devi Gupta4).
Nelson Motis vs Union Of India And Another on 2 September, 1992
The legislative history reinforces
why it is but necessary that the Court must adopt a plain and
ordinary connotation of the words used in Article 220. Besides,
where the words of a statutory provision are clear, plain and
unambiguous, the duty of the Court is to attribute to them their
plain, ordinary and literal meaning. The Court cannot, it is well
settled, obviate a recourse to the literal and plain meaning of the
words used merely on the basis of consequences which the Court
does not consider to be appropriate. (Nelson Motis vs. Union of
India2; Gurudevdatta VKSSS Maryadit vs. State of
Maharashtra3; and Nathi Devi Vs. Radha Devi Gupta4).