Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.19 seconds)Haryana State Cooperative Land ... vs Haryana State Cooperative Land ... on 18 December, 2003
The argument of the petitioner to say the least is rather
adventurous. Reference is made to a decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Haryana State Cooperative
Land Development Bank Limited - Vs. - Haryana State
Cooperative Land Development Banks Employees Union &
Another reported in (2004) 1 Supreme Court Cases 574. At
paragraph 9 of the said judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held as follows:
Shah Bhojraj Kuverji Oil Mills And ... vs Subbash Chandra Yograj Sinha on 21 April, 1961
"9. The normal function of a proviso is to except something out of
the enactment or to qualify something enacted therein which but for
the proviso would be within the purview of the enactment. As was
stated in Mullins - Vs. - Treasurer of Surrey (referred to in Shah
Phojraj Kuverji Oil Mills and Ginning Factory - Vs. - Subhash
Chandra Yograj Sinha and Calcutta Tramways Co. Ltd. - Vs. -
Corpn. of Calcutta), when one finds a proviso to a section the natural
presumption is that, but for the proviso, the enacting part of the
section would have included the subject-matter of the proviso. The
proper function of a proviso is to except and to deal with a case which
would otherwise fall within the general language of the main
enactment and its effect is confined to that case. It is a qualification of
the proceeding enactment which is expressed in terms too general to
be quite accurate. As a general rule, a proviso is added to an
enactment to qualify or create an exception to what is in the
enactment and ordinarily, a proviso is not interpreted as stating a
general rule.
The Calcutta Tramways Co. Ltd vs The Corporation Of Calcutta on 12 March, 1965
"9. The normal function of a proviso is to except something out of
the enactment or to qualify something enacted therein which but for
the proviso would be within the purview of the enactment. As was
stated in Mullins - Vs. - Treasurer of Surrey (referred to in Shah
Phojraj Kuverji Oil Mills and Ginning Factory - Vs. - Subhash
Chandra Yograj Sinha and Calcutta Tramways Co. Ltd. - Vs. -
Corpn. of Calcutta), when one finds a proviso to a section the natural
presumption is that, but for the proviso, the enacting part of the
section would have included the subject-matter of the proviso. The
proper function of a proviso is to except and to deal with a case which
would otherwise fall within the general language of the main
enactment and its effect is confined to that case. It is a qualification of
the proceeding enactment which is expressed in terms too general to
be quite accurate. As a general rule, a proviso is added to an
enactment to qualify or create an exception to what is in the
enactment and ordinarily, a proviso is not interpreted as stating a
general rule.
Tribhovandas Haribhai Tamboli vs Gujarat Revenue Tribunal And Ors on 10 May, 1991
- Raje Ram Sheoran, Tribhovandas Haribhai Tamboli - Vs. - Gujarat
5
Revenue Tribunal and Kerala State Housing Board - Vs. - Ramapriya
Hotels (P) Ltd.]
"This word (proviso) hath diverse operations. Sometime it worketh a
qualification or limitation; sometime a condition; and sometime a
covenant." (Coke upon Littleton, 18th Edn.
Kerala State Housing Bd vs Ramapriya Hotels on 28 July, 1994
- Raje Ram Sheoran, Tribhovandas Haribhai Tamboli - Vs. - Gujarat
5
Revenue Tribunal and Kerala State Housing Board - Vs. - Ramapriya
Hotels (P) Ltd.]
"This word (proviso) hath diverse operations. Sometime it worketh a
qualification or limitation; sometime a condition; and sometime a
covenant." (Coke upon Littleton, 18th Edn.
1