Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 30 (0.39 seconds)
R.Balameena vs The Chief Engineer / Personnel on 28 June, 2019 cites

Kanai Lal Sur vs Paramnidhi Sadhukhan on 10 September, 1957

"12. Before proceeding further, we may notice two well-recognised 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 v. Paramnidhi Sadhukhan, AIR 1957 SC 907.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 273 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Poppatlal Shah vs The State Of Madras.Union Of India And ... on 30 March, 1953

(4) In Poppatlal Shah v. State of Madras, AIR 1953 SC 274, the Supreme Court held, "It is settled rule of construction that to ascertain the legislative intent all the constituent parts of a statute are to be taken together and each word, phrase and sentence is to be considered in the light of the general purpose and object of the Act itself."
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 192 - B K Mukherjea - Full Document

Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh And Another vs The State Of Vindhya Pradesh on 22 May, 1953

(5) In Rao Shive Bahadur Singh v. State, AIR 1953 SC 394, the Supreme Court held, "While, no doubt, it is not permissible to supply a clear and obvious lacuna in a statute, and imply a right of appeal, it is incumbent on the Court to avoid a construction, if reasonably permissible on the language, which would render a part of the statute devoid of any meaning or application."
Supreme Court of India Cites 50 - Cited by 603 - B Jagannadhadas - Full Document

Commissioner Of Sales-Tax, U.P vs Mangal Sen Shyam Lal on 2 April, 1975

http://www.judis.nic.in 11 (12) In Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Mangal Sen Shyamlal, 1975 (4) SCC 35 : AIR 1975 SC 1106, the Hon'ble Apex Court held, "A statute is supposed to be an authentic repository of the legislative will and the function of a court is to interpret it "according to the intent of them that made it". From that function the court is. not to resile. It has to abide by the maxim, "ut res magis valiat quam pereat", lest the intention of the legislature may go in vain or be left to evaporate into thin air."
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 13 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next