Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.24 seconds)
The Commissioner, Trade Tax vs Durga Form Product Ltd. on 23 September, 2005 cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Minal Rameshchandra on 13 October, 1986

6. The Supreme Court has time and again in various judgments dealing with the income tax matters has taken judicial notice of the fact that with the advancement of the science and change of living conditions, new meaning to the provisions of law should be given so that the letters of law may not become dead letters. The law should be interpreted looking to the facts prevailing in the society at the relevant point of time. Reference can be made to the case of C.I.T. v. Minal Rameshchandra .
Gujarat High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 26 - Full Document

The State Of Maharashtra vs Dr. Praful B. Desai on 1 April, 2003

11. Recently a controversy arose before the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai as to whether evidence can be recorded in a criminal trial by the video conferencing. The Supreme Court observed that the Criminal Procedure Code is a ongoing statute. It reiterated the principles of interpretation as applicable to a ongoing statute as laid down by the leading jurist Francis Bennion in his commentaries titled "Statutory Interpretation". 2nd Edition page 617, which is reproduced below:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 166 - Full Document

M/S. Sil Import, Usa vs M/S. Exim Aides Silk Exporters, ... on 3 May, 1999

Further in the case of SIL Import USA v. Exim Aides Silk Exporters , the Supreme Court has held that the words " notice in writing", in Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, would include a notice by fax. By applying the process of interpretation of ongoing statute, stage carriage has been interpreted to include " electric tramcar; "steam tricycle" to include "locomotive"; "telegraph" to include "telephone"; "bankers books" to include "microfilm"; "to take note" to include "use of tape recorder"; "documents" to include "computer data base's".
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 113 - Full Document

Kailash Chand & Anr vs Dharam Dass on 4 May, 2005

14. The Supreme Court quoted with approval the above passage in the case of Kailash Chand and Anr. v. Dharam Pass (2005) 5 SCC 375 and has observed that life is not static and so the law can not afforded to be static. It has held that a statute can never be exhaustive. The legislature is incapable of contemplating all possible situations which may arise in future litigation and in myriad circumstances. The scope is always there for the court to interpret the law with pragmatism and consistently with the demands of varying situations. The construction placed by the court on statutory provisions has to be meaningful. The legislative intent has to be found out and effectuated.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 52 - R C Lahoti - Full Document
1   2 Next