Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.37 seconds)Ashok Lanka & Anr vs Rishi Dixit & Ors on 11 May, 2005
In Ashok Lanka and Another v. Rishi Dixit and Others, the
Supreme Court held thus :
Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd vs Municlpal Board, Rampur on 30 October, 1964
15. The Supreme Court in case of Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. (Supra)
relying upon the earlier decisions rendered by it including the case of
Baburam Upadhyay (Supra) dealing with the said question, has held as
under:
J&K Housing Board & Anr vs Kanwar Sanjay Krishan Kaul & Ors on 4 November, 2011
13. It is settled position of law, as laid down in 2011(10)SCC714, J&K Housing
Board & Another Vs. Kunwar Sanjay Krishan Kaul & Others, that when
any statutory provision provides a particular manner for doing a particular
act, the said Act or thing must be done in accordance with the manner
prescribed therefor in the Act and the Rules framed therein.
U.P. State Electricity Board vs Shri Shiv Mohan Singh And Anr on 1 October, 2004
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.)"
State Bank Of Patiala & Ors vs S.K.Sharma on 27 March, 1996
(Also see: State Bank of Patiala and Other v. S.K.
Sharma).
P.T. Rajan vs T.P.M. Sahir And Ors on 26 September, 2003
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.)"
Pranay Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 December, 2018
14. The Division Bench of MP High Court in case of Pranay Gupta Vs. State
of MP & Others, 2004(4)MPLJ-574, dealing with a situation, identical to
the facts of the present case, has in a very categorical terms held that the
requirement relating to publication contended in proviso to Section 125(1)
of the Act, 1993 is mandatory and not directory. One of the question which
has been dealt with by the Division Bench is as to whether the use of word
"Shall" in the proviso to Section 125(1) of the Act, 1993 as also in Rule 3
of Rules, 1994 is mandatory or directory.
1