Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.41 seconds)Jagdish Pitambar Pawar vs Pitambar Pundalik Pawar And Others on 6 October, 2023
5. The petition is squarely covered by the
decisions of the Division Bench of this Court at
Aurangabad in the case of Jagdish Pitambar Pawar Vs.
Pitamber Pundalik and others [Writ Petition No.
36/2023, order dated 29.11.2023] and the decision of
the High Court of Delhi in case of Sudesh Chhikara Vs.
State [2018 SCC Online Del 12365], wherein it has been
held that Section 16(1) of the Act of 2007 cannot be read
to limit the appeal only to one party i.e senior citizen as
the same would render the provisions invalid. To sustain
the validity of Section 16(1) of the Act of 2007, the same
must be interpreted by applying the principle of
purposive interpretation and casus omissus. Further, it
has been held that right to appeal under Section 16 of the
Act of 2007 provide right to appeal to the affected party
including son of a senior citizen.
Sudesh Chhikara vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) And Ors on 13 November, 2018
5. The petition is squarely covered by the
decisions of the Division Bench of this Court at
Aurangabad in the case of Jagdish Pitambar Pawar Vs.
Pitamber Pundalik and others [Writ Petition No.
36/2023, order dated 29.11.2023] and the decision of
the High Court of Delhi in case of Sudesh Chhikara Vs.
State [2018 SCC Online Del 12365], wherein it has been
held that Section 16(1) of the Act of 2007 cannot be read
to limit the appeal only to one party i.e senior citizen as
the same would render the provisions invalid. To sustain
the validity of Section 16(1) of the Act of 2007, the same
must be interpreted by applying the principle of
purposive interpretation and casus omissus. Further, it
has been held that right to appeal under Section 16 of the
Act of 2007 provide right to appeal to the affected party
including son of a senior citizen.
1