Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)Sahebzada Mohammad Kamgar Shah vs Jagdish Chandra Deo Dhabal Deoand ... on 21 April, 1960
18. Thirdly, where it is not possible to resolve conflict between two clauses and the same are irreconcievable, courts have evolved the principle or the theory that what once has been granted cannot be taken away. A clear disposition in an earlier clause cannot be withdrawn and cut down by a later clause. (Refer Sahebzada Mohd. Kamgarh Shah v. Jagdish Chandra Deb , Ram Kishore Lal v. Kamal Narain and Forbes v. GIT reported in (1922) 1 AC 256).
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs M/S. Pushpalaya Printers on 25 February, 2004
20. Lastly, rule of contra preferentem applies against the party/person who has prepared the document in case of any ambiguity. As per this rule, a document can be construed against a party who had prepared the same. (See, United India Insurance v. Pushpalaya Printers ).
Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. & Anr vs The State Of Gujarat And Another on 12 September, 1974
26. We are conscious of the fact that courts are normally reluctant to interpret a contract on the basis of subsequent conduct of the parties. However, in the case of Godhra Electricity Company Limited v. State of Gujarat , the Supreme Court accepted the fact that the conduct of the parties in rendering or receiving performances under contract can be of assistance in interpreting statement made by the parties themselves in the contract. The conduct of the parties is a further expression by the parties to the meaning they had given and intended to give to the terms of the contracts previously made. Subsequent practice and conduct can in certain circumstances be taken into consideration, where there is scope for ambiguity as it throws light on the meaning of a term or a clause. Though subsequent statements cannot change the meaning of a word, phrase or clause which is crystal clear from a plain reading of the same, in case of ambiguity, extrinsic evidence in the shape of subsequent statements of both the parties and their conduct is admissible.
Delhi Development Authority vs Durga Chand Kaushish on 28 August, 1973
16. The above interpretation given by us is in consonance with certain well established principles of construction of deeds and documents. The first general rule of interpretation of a deed or document is to read the document itself as a whole and not in piece-meal and gather the intention of the parties from the words used. (See in this regard, Odgers Construction of Deeds and Statutes, 5th Edition, 1967 and the observations of the Supreme Court in Delhi Development Authority v. Durga Chand Kaushik ).
State Of Manipur & Ors vs Y. Token Singh & Ors on 20 February, 2007
Remote chance of success or real likelihood of success has been applied in some cases (State of Manipur v. Y. Token Singh Reported in ). However, there is unanimity that exercise of writ Jurisdiction is discretionary in cases where there is no violation of the constitutional or mandatory statutory requirements but principles of natural justice have been violated. In such cases, writ courts always have discretion whether or not to grant relief to the petitioner, who approaches the Court on the ground that there is violation of right of hearing.
Article 229 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 300A in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Aligarh Muslim University And Ors vs Mansoor Ali Khan on 28 August, 2000
38. The Appellant has vociferously contended that there has been violation of principles of natural justice in so far as, no notice and hearing was given to the appellant before their sub-lease was cancelled or declared void. As stated above, the said declaration and cancellation was a natural consequence of restoration of the sub-lease in favor of Mr. Dharam Chand. It is the stand of the respondents that for restoration of the sub-lease of Mr. Dharam Chand, the appellant was not required to be heard and no show cause notice was required to be issued. There may be some merit in the said contention but as subsequent sub-lease had been issued for the same very plot/property in favor of the appellant, it would have been better and more appropriate if the appellant had been informed and given a chance to make a representation. However, we are not inclined to allow the present appeal solely on this basis. Principles of natural justice have to be complied with to ensure that the decision taken is just, fair and appropriate. It also prevents unnecessary litigation by an aggrieved party whose contentions and objections are not heard. Supreme Court in S.L. Kapoor verus Jagmohan reported in (1980) 4 SCC 379, had observed that non-observance of principles of natural justice in itself causes prejudice,but in subsequent cases, the Supreme Court has accepted the doctrine of useless formality theory, at least in cases where there are admitted or indisputable facts (See Aligarh Muslium University v. Mansoor Ali Khan Reported in ).
Satish Kumar Kapoor vs Delhi Development Authority And Anr. on 18 February, 2003
24. The second letter is virtually on similar lines stating, inter alia, that there was acute shortage of cement in the country and there was a pressing need to conserve cement for export and therefore Delhi Administration and DDA should not resume plots on the ground of non-construction and extension of time beyond stipulated period may be granted consistent with the availability of building material. It is not disputed that due to shortage of steel, cement and construction material, general amnesty was granted from 1st January, 1971 to 31st December, 1975 by the DDA and the Government of India (See in this regard observations of the Court in Satish Kumar Kapoor v. DDA and Anr. ). In these circumstances, it was rather unusual for DDA to cancel the allotment and re-enter the plot bearing No. C-70 allotted to Mr.Dharam Chand on 21st May, 1973.The said action cannot be justified. In fact there are representations of Mr.Dharam Chand on record that due to non- availability and acute shortage of cement and other material and also as his father had fallen sick he was unable to construct the house, though he constructed the garage block and that construction itself was sufficient compliance with the terms of the lease. The file nothings also reveal that Mr.Dharam Chand had repeatedly made representations for restoration of the plot also pointing out other cases wherein construction had not been made but no order for re-entry had been passed and the defaults were condoned.
1