Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 33 (0.32 seconds)
Shiba Shankar Mohapatra & Ors vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 12 November, 2009 cites

Indian Metals And Ferro Alloys Ltd. ... vs Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 22 November, 1990

In Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd., Cuttack Vs. The Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneshwar, AIR 1991 SC 1028, the Court has applied the same rule of interpretation by holding that contemporanea expositio by the administrative authority is a very useful and relevant guide to the interpretation of the expression used in a statutory instrument.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 89 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Desh Bandhu Gupta & Co. & Ors vs Delhi Stock Exchange Assn. Ltd on 23 February, 1979

In Desh Bandhu Gupta & Co. & Ors Vs. Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd. AIR 1979 SC 1049; and State of Tamil Nadu vs. Mohi Traders, AIR 1989 SC 1167, this Court observed that the principle of contemporanea expositio, i.e. interpreting a document by reference to the 1 exposition it has received from Competent Authority can be invoked though the same will not always be decisive of the question of construction. The administrative construction, i.e. the contemporaneous construction placed by administrative or executive officers responsible for execution of the Act/Rules etc. generally should be clearly wrong before it is over-turned. Such a construction commonly referred to as practical construction although not controlling, is nevertheless entitled to considerable weight and is highly persuasive. However, it may be disregarded for cogent reasons.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 107 - V D Tulzapurkar - Full Document

State Of Tamil Nadu vs Mahi Traders & Ors. Etc. Etc on 3 February, 1989

In Desh Bandhu Gupta & Co. & Ors Vs. Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd. AIR 1979 SC 1049; and State of Tamil Nadu vs. Mohi Traders, AIR 1989 SC 1167, this Court observed that the principle of contemporanea expositio, i.e. interpreting a document by reference to the 1 exposition it has received from Competent Authority can be invoked though the same will not always be decisive of the question of construction. The administrative construction, i.e. the contemporaneous construction placed by administrative or executive officers responsible for execution of the Act/Rules etc. generally should be clearly wrong before it is over-turned. Such a construction commonly referred to as practical construction although not controlling, is nevertheless entitled to considerable weight and is highly persuasive. However, it may be disregarded for cogent reasons.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 58 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Punjab Traders And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 18 September, 1990

11. The executive interpretation placed by those who are charged with executing the statute, though not binding, is nevertheless entitled to considerable weight as highly persuasive. However, the application of the doctrine in respect of modern Statutes has been doubted by this Court (vide M/s. Punjab Traders vs. State of Punjab and Ors. AIR 1990 SC 2300 and M/s. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise AIR 1993 SC 2288.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 21 - T K Thommen - Full Document

Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. Etc. Etc vs Collector Of Central Excise And Ors on 27 April, 1993

11. The executive interpretation placed by those who are charged with executing the statute, though not binding, is nevertheless entitled to considerable weight as highly persuasive. However, the application of the doctrine in respect of modern Statutes has been doubted by this Court (vide M/s. Punjab Traders vs. State of Punjab and Ors. AIR 1990 SC 2300 and M/s. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise AIR 1993 SC 2288.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 65 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next