Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.21 seconds)Union Of India And Anr vs Deoki Nandan Aggarwal on 4 September, 1991
Even if there is a defect or an omission in the statute, the Court cannot correct the defect or supply the omission Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 323 : (AIR 1992 SC 96: 1991 AIR SCW 2754), Shyam Kishori Devi Vs. Patna Municipal Corporation (1966) 3 SCR 466 : (AIR 1966 SC 1678).
Smt. Shyam Kishori Devi vs Patna Municipal Corporation & Anr on 4 February, 1966
10. Following the judgment of the Division Bench of Kerala High Court in P.K. Vasudeva Rao Vs. Hari Menon (AIR 1982 Ker 35), the learned Single Judge of this High Court in the case of Smt. Narbada Vs. Aashi (AIR 1987 Rajasthan 162) held that in a suit for cancellation of decree, the court fee is required to be paid on the market value of the property but the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in the case of Sathee Devi (supra) that the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Smt. Narbada (supra) does not lay down the correct law.
P.K. Vasudeva Rao vs K.C. Hari Menon And Anr. on 22 September, 1981
10. Following the judgment of the Division Bench of Kerala High Court in P.K. Vasudeva Rao Vs. Hari Menon (AIR 1982 Ker 35), the learned Single Judge of this High Court in the case of Smt. Narbada Vs. Aashi (AIR 1987 Rajasthan 162) held that in a suit for cancellation of decree, the court fee is required to be paid on the market value of the property but the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in the case of Sathee Devi (supra) that the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Smt. Narbada (supra) does not lay down the correct law.
Kanai Lal Sur vs Paramnidhi Sadhukhan on 10 September, 1957
9. Before proceeding further, we may notice two well recognized rules of interpretation of statutes. The first and primary rule of construction is that the intention of the legislature must be found in the words used by the legislature itself. If the words used are capable of one construction, only then it would not be open to the courts to adopt any other hypothetical construction on the ground that such hypothetical construction is more consistent with the alleged object and policy of the Act. The words used in the material provisions of the statute must be interpreted in their plain grammatical meaning and it is only when such words are capable of two constructions that the question of giving effect to the policy or object of the Act can legitimately arise Kanai Lal Sur Vs. Paramnidhi Sadhukhan, 1958 SCR 360 : (AIR 1957 SC 907). The other important rule of interpretation is that the Court cannot rewrite, recast or re-frame the legislation because it has no power to do so. The Court cannot add words to a statute or read words which are not therein.
Section 38 in The Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 38 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 40 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Smt. Narbada vs Smt. Aashi on 21 February, 1986
10. Following the judgment of the Division Bench of Kerala High Court in P.K. Vasudeva Rao Vs. Hari Menon (AIR 1982 Ker 35), the learned Single Judge of this High Court in the case of Smt. Narbada Vs. Aashi (AIR 1987 Rajasthan 162) held that in a suit for cancellation of decree, the court fee is required to be paid on the market value of the property but the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in the case of Sathee Devi (supra) that the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Smt. Narbada (supra) does not lay down the correct law.
1