Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.16 seconds)Paramjit Kumar Saroya vs The Union Of India And Another on 28 May, 2014
13. Before concluding, it would also be relevant to refer to
the decision of a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana
High Court in Paramjit Kumar Saroya v. Union of India
and Another: AIR 2014 P&H 121, wherein the Court had
interpreted Section 16 (1) of the Act to also provide the
right of appeal to any of the affected parties. In terms of the
said decision, the provisions of Section 16 (1) of the Act
cannot be read to limit the appeal only to one party (Senior
Citizens or Parents as the case may be), as the same would
render the provisions invalid. The Court had reasoned that
to sustain the validity of Section 16 (1) of the Act, the same
must be interpreted by applying the principles of purposive
interpretation and casus omissus. The Court rejected the
challenge to the validity of Section 16 (1) of the Act but
held that "it must be read to provide for the right of appeal
to any of the affected parties."
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 32 in The Maintenance And Welfare Of Parents And Senior Citizens Act, 2007 [Entire Act]
Sudesh Chhikara vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) And Ors on 13 November, 2018
11703/2018
in the case of Sudesh Chhikara v. State(Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
The relevant paragraphs 12 to 14 of the judgment in the case of Sudesh
Chhikara (supra), are reproduced below:
1