Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.25 seconds)Indian Companies Act, 1913
Banking Companies Act, 1949
Article 368 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The English And Foreign Languages University Act, 2006
The Companies Act, 1956
The Institute Of Chartered Accountants ... vs M/S. Price Waterhouse & Anr on 11 July, 1997
"It is a well settled principle in law that the court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous. A statute is an edict of the Legislature. The language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of legislative intent. Words and phrases are symbols that stimulate mental references to referents. The object of interpreting a statute is to ascertain the intention of the Legislature enacting it. (see Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Price Waterhouse [1997] 90 Comp Cas 113; [1997] 6 SCC 312 ; AIR 1998 SC 74) The intention of the Legislature is primarily to be gathered from the language used, which means that attention should be paid to what has been said as also to what has not been said. As a consequence, a construction which requires for its support, addition or substitution of words or which results in rejection of words as meaningless has to be avoided.
The State Of Gujarat & Ors vs Dilipbhai Nathjibhai Patel & Anr on 3 March, 1998
As observed in Crawford v. Spooner [1846] 6 Moo PCC 1: 4 MIA 179 courts cannot aid the Legislatures defective phrasing of an Act, we cannot add or mend, and by construction make up deficiencies which are left there (see State of Gujarat v. Dilipbhai Nathjibhai Patel [1998] 3 SCC 234 ; [1998] SCC (Cri) 737; [1998] 2 JT SC 253).
The Jumma Masjid, Mercara vs Kodimaniandra Deviah on 11 January, 1962
Courts are not entitled to read words into an Act of Parliament unless clear reason for it is to be found within the four corners of the Act itself (Per Lord Loreburn L.C. in Victors, Sons and Maxim, Ltd. v. Evans [1910] AC 444 (HL); [1910] WN 161, quoted in Jumma Masjid v. Kodimaniandra Deviah, AIR 1962 SC 847).
Union Of India And Ors vs Filip Tiago De Gama Of Vedem Vasco De Gama on 30 November, 1989
The view was reiterated in Union of India v. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama [1990] 1 SCC 277 ; AIR 1990 SC 981."