Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.87 seconds)

Nalinakhya Bysack vs Shyam Sunder Haldar And Others on 29 January, 1953

The Court must indeed proceed on the assumption that the legislature did not make a mistake and that it intended to say what it said: See Nalinakhya Bysack v. Shyam Sunder Haldar & Ors., [1953] SCR 533 at 545. Assuming there is a defect or an omission in the words used by the legislature, the Court would not go to its aid to correct or make up the deficiency. The Court cannot add words to a statute or read words into it which are not there, especially when the literal reading produces an intelligible result.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 152 - Full Document

Dakshayini And Ors. vs Madhavan on 1 September, 1981

It would perhaps have been better, more logical, reasonable and practical, as stated by the Kerala High Court in Dakshayini & Ors. v. Madhavan, AIR 1982 Kerala 126, to enlarge the period for making the deposit so as to make it identical with that prescribed for making the appli- cation, and such extended period would have better served the object of the amendment, namely, ameliorating the plight of the judgment-debtor, but such are matters exclusively within the domain of legislation by Parliament and the Court cannot presume deficiency and supply the omission. The legislature did not do more than what it did. It has, in our view, accomplished what it had set out to achieve. No more no less.
Kerala High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1