Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.25 seconds)
J.K. Soni vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 23 February, 2012 cites

Prem Chand Jain & Anr vs R. K. Chhabra on 13 February, 1984

10. It may be noted that earlier also the office bearers of the Petitioner‟s company were prosecuted and convicted for offence punishable under Section 24 IPC, which conviction was upheld by this Court. On an appeal, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Prem Chand Jain & Anr. Vs. R.K. Chhabra AIR 1984 SC 981 considered the issues at length. In the said appeal the vires of the UGC Act were also challenged, which were upheld by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. Their Lordships declined to accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the Appellant therein that the definition of the „University‟ given in Section 2 (f) or the prohibition in Section 23 of the UGC Act are ultra vires on the ground that such provisions were beyond the legislative competence of the Parliament. It may be noted that in the said judgment, their Lordships acquitted the Appellants therein in view of the fact that they had resigned in between 1962 to 1970 and the fact that in view of the Companies Act they were under a misapprehension that they could use the word „University‟. Their Lordships in held:
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 69 - M Rangnath - Full Document

State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Pawan Kumar on 8 April, 2005

Neither the UGC nor the State is a complainant and the complainant K. Ambalavanan had no locus standi to file the complaint or prosecute the Petitioner. The contentions of the Petitioner have not been taken into consideration and Section 147 of the Companies Act does not find mention in any of the two judgments impugned. It is contended that in case of two parallel Statutes for penal provisions, the Petitioner can be dealt only with the one which provides for lesser punishment. Reliance is placed on Crl.Rev.P.463/2009 Page 2 of 9 State of H.P. Vs. Pawan Kumar (2005) 4 SCC 350 to contend that one of the basic principles of interpretation to a Statute is to construe it according to plane, literal and grammatical meaning of the words. If the same are contrary to the expressed intention or declared purpose of the Statute or involve absurdity or repugnancy or inconsistency, the grammatical sense must be modified, extended or abridged to avoid such an inconvenience.
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 489 - G P Mathur - Full Document
1   2 Next