Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.32 seconds)
Subrati vs Bhagwati Prasad on 23 October, 1989 cites

Ram Pratap vs Smt. Manphool on 27 March, 1985

12. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the period prescribed in subsection (3) of Section 13 of the Act, within which the Court should make provisional determination of amount of rent to be deposited in Court or to be paid to the landlord by the tenant cannot be regarded as mandatory and that it is only directory. The view expressed in Modmal v. Maheshwari Samaj (RLW 1986 343) and Gani Mohammed v. Motilal and others (RDR 1988 (1), 1023) does not lay down correct law and earlier view taken in Ramchandra v. Kanak Ram (WLN 1980, 128), and Ram Pratap v. Smt. Manphool (RLR 1985, 967) lays down correct law.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

S.N. Bannerjee And Secretary Of State vs Kurchwar Lime And Stone Company, ... on 31 October, 1938

Similarly in Secretary of State v. Kuchwar Lime and Stone Co. Ltd., (AIR 1938 Privy Council 20) : (1938 ALJ 72) it was held that the requirement as to registration of certain document prescribed by Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is mandatory since the consequence of non-registration is provided by Section 49 of the Registration Act in that such documents if not registered do not affect the property comprised therein.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 38 - Full Document

Manilal Mohanlal Shah And Others vs Sardar Sayed Ahmed Sayed Mahmad And ... on 14 April, 1954

Manilal Mohanlal Shah v. Sardar Sayed Ahmed Sayed Mohmad, (AIR 1954 SC 349), was a case, in which it was held by the Apex Court that it is an application of the same principle that the provisions of Order 21, Rules 84 and 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure requiring an auction purchaser to deposit twenty-five per cent of the purchase money forthwith and the balance on the fifteenth day from the sale, have been held to be mandatory, as on failure, in making either of these deposits within the time prescribed, the property has to be re-sold as provided in Order 21, Rule 84, and Rule 86. Generall it is held tht provision enacted is mandatory, if it is clothed with command in a negative form. As stated by Crawford. "Prohibitive or negative words can rarely, if ever, be directory, And this is so even though the statute provides no penalty for disobedience." (Craw-ford : Statutory Construction, p. 523 p.) But the principle is not without exception.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 150 - G Hasan - Full Document

Bombay Union Of Journalists & Ors vs The State Of Bombay & Anr on 19 December, 1963

An interesting example, where negative words have been hold to be directory, is furnished in the construction of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, where compliance of clause (c) has been held to be directory by the Apex Court in Bombay Union of Journalists v. State of Bombay (AIR 1964 SC 1617), although compliance of clauses (a) and (b) which are connected by the same negative words is understood as mandatory., in the same authority.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 123 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

State Of U. P vs Manbodhan Lal Srivastava on 20 September, 1957

While the use of word 'shall' as held in State of U. P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, (AIR 1957 SC 912 : 1957 All LJ 921), raises a presumption that the particular provision is imperative, but this prima facie inference may be rebutted.by other consider-tions such as object and scope of the enactment and the consequences flowing from such construction. There are numerous cases where the word 'shall' has therefore, been construed as merely directory.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 553 - B P Sinha - Full Document
1   2 3 Next