Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.23 seconds)
R.Karthick vs The District Collector on 7 August, 2019 cites

Dadi Jagannadham vs Jammulu Ramulu & Ors on 23 August, 2001

(ii) In Dadi Jagannadham v. Jammulu Ramulu reported in (2001) 7 SCC 71, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, “13. We have considered the submissions made by the parties. The settled principles of interpretation are that the court must proceed on the assumption that the legislature did not make a mistake and that it did what it intended to do. The court must, as far as possible, adopt a construction which will carry out the obvious intention of the legislature. Undoubtedly if there is a defect or an omission in the words used by the legislature, the court would not go to its aid to correct or make up the deficiency. The court could not add words to a statute or read words into it which are not there, especially when the literal reading produces an intelligible result.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 169 - S N Variava - Full Document

Institute Of Chartered Accountants Of ... vs Ajit Kumar Iddya on 14 January, 2003

(iv) In Institute of C.A. of India v. Ajit Kumar Iddya reported in AIR 2003 Kant. 187, the Karnataka High Court held that, http://www.judis.nic.in “So far as the cardinal law of interpretation is 12 concerned, it is settled that if the language is simple and unambiguous, it is to be read with the clear intention of the legislation. Otherwise also, any addition/subtraction of a word is not permissible. In other words, it is not proper to use a sense, which is different from what the word used ordinarily conveys. The duty of the Court is not to fill up the gap by stretching a word used. It is also settled that a provision is to be read as a whole and while interpreting, the intention and object of the legislation have to be looked upon. However, each case depends upon the facts of its own.”
Karnataka High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

Indian Dental Association, By Its ... vs Union Of India (Uoi), By Its Secretary ... on 1 October, 2003

(v) In Indian Dental Association, Kerala v. Union of India reported in 2004 (1) Kant. LJ 282, the Karnataka High Court held that, “The cardinal rule for the construction of Acts of Parliament is that they should be construed according to the intention expressed in the Acts themselves. The object of all interpretation is to discover the intention of Parliament, "but the intention of Parliament must be deduced from the language used", for it is well-accepted that the beliefs and assumptions of those who frame Acts of Parliament cannot make the law. If the words of the statute are themselves precise and unambiguous, then no more can be necessary than to expound those words in their ordinary and natural sense. Where the laguage of an Act is clear and explicit, the Court must give effect to it, whatever may be the consequences, for in that case the words of the statute speak the intention of the Legislature. Where the language is plain and admits of but one http://www.judis.nic.in meaning, the task of interpretation can hardly be said to arise.
Karnataka High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 25 - N Kumar - Full Document
1   2 Next