Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.25 seconds)
In Re: Tara Chand Podder vs Unknown on 17 January, 1966 cites

The Gujarat University, Ahmedabad vs Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar And Others on 21 February, 1962

10. It is true that while construing a statute the Court cannot lake into consideration the statements of Objects and Reasons accompanying a Bill, then introduced in Parliament; but these statements may and do often furnish valuable historical material in ascertaining the reasons which induced the legislature to enact a statute :-- Gujarat University v. Shri Krishna, ; and State of West Bengal v. Union of India. . With this end in view, I have looked into the Statements of Objects and Reasons and notes on clauses relating to Bill No. 64 of 1964 which was moved in Parliament to amend further the Companies Act of 1956 The note of Clause 50 is as follows:--
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 214 - J C Shah - Full Document

T. B. Ibrahim vs Regional Transport Authority,Tanjore on 5 December, 1952

8. These contentions of the learned Junior Standing Counsel deserve careful consideration; but I have to take into account the law as it stood before the introduction of Section 394A and the problemt that the new section has raised. I have already said that by Section 643 of the Companies Act, 1958, power has been given to the Supreme Court to make Rules after consulting the High Courts. These Rules have been framed by the Supreme Court, relevant portions whereof have been quoted in the earlier part of this Judgment These Rules have the effect of an Act of Parliament; they have been made under a rule-making power conferred by the Statute; they are part and parcel of the Statute itself; and they cannot be ignored in implementing the new provisions in Section 394A; vide Craies on Statute Law, 5th Edition page 293 and T.B. Ibrahim v. Regional Transport Authority, Tanjore, . Rules 67 and 68 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, clearly lay down that an application under Section 391(1) for an order convening a meeting of creditors or members shall be moved ex parte except where the Company is not the applicant or the Company is being wound up. Similarly Rule 71 provides that an application under Sub-section (6) of Section 391 for stay of commencement or continuation of suits or proceedings, may bi moved ex parte except where a petition for winding up or a petition under Section 397 or 398 is pending. If, therefore, notice of every application under Section 391(1) or 391(6) has to be given to the Central Government to com-ply with the provisions of Section 394A, a petitioner's right to move the court ex parte would be completely taken away The new section gives no indication of the deprivation of this right and creates a conflict between itself and the Law which existed prior to its incorporation. In a case like this it is the duty of the Court to try to avoid such conflict and adopt, if possible the Rule of harmonious construction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 49 - G Hasan - Full Document
1   2 Next