Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.23 seconds)
Manoj Kumar And 3 Ors. vs State Of U.P.And 3 Ors. on 9 September, 2019 cites

State Of West Bengal vs Union Of India on 21 December, 1962

In State of West Bengal vs. Union of India3, the then Chief Justice Mr. B.P. Sinha, speaking for the majority has said that in considering the true meaning of words or expression used by the Legislature, the Court must have regard to the aim, object and scope of the statute to be read in its entirety. The Court must ascertain the intention of the Legislature by directing its attention not merely to the clauses to be construed but to the entire Statute; it must compare the clause with the other parts of the law, and the setting in which the clause to be interpreted occurs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 99 - Cited by 316 - B P Sinha - Full Document

Union Of India vs Elphinstone Spinning & Weaving Co. Ltd. ... on 10 January, 2001

The Constitution Bench in Union of India vs. Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. and others4 has held that when the question arises as to the meaning of a certain provision in a Statute it is not only legitimate but proper to read that provision in its context. The context means; the statute as a whole, the previous state of law, other statutes in pari materia, the general scope of the statute and the mischief that it was intended to remedy.
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 133 - Full Document

National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Anjana Shyam & Ors on 20 August, 2007

In National Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Anjana Shyam and others7, taking note of the proposition propounded in 1846 by Dr. Lushington in Queen V. Eduljee Byramjee [(1846) 3 MIA 468] it is held that the proposition that to ascertain the true meaning of a clause in a statute the court must look at the whole statute, at what precedes and at what succeeds and not merely at the clause itself, has been accepted and reiterated by the Apex Court in innumerable cases.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 339 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document

Vinay Kumar Singh & Others vs State Of U.P. & Others on 21 July, 2010

In the supplementary rejoinder affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 35705 of 2013, it is contended that out of total 94 posts of Sinchpal in Sharda Nahar Khand, Shahjahanpur, 55 posts became vacant during pendency of the present writ petition. The selected candidates, whose appointments were cancelled vide termination order dated 13.9.2012 filed a Writ Petition No. 60830 of 2012 (Vinay Kumar Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others), which had been allowed vide judgment and order dated 26.11.2012, resulting in restoration of their appointment. Resultantly, six selected persons had been reinstated vide office orders dated 27.4.2013.
Allahabad High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Sichai Sangh U.P. & Others vs State Of U.P. & Others on 4 February, 2010

In reply to paragraph '12' of the Writ Petition No. 43960 of 2012, it is stated therein that 8 posts of Sinchpal (Patrols) were vacant and hence the same were advertised to be filled through a regular selection. However, the said selection was challenged in Writ Petition No. 60334 of 2011 (Sichai Sangh and others vs. State of U.P. and others), the services of six Sinchpal appointed pursuant to the said selection were terminated vide order dated 26.10.2012. Remaining 2 selected candidates had been transferred to another division and resultantly services of all 8 persons selected as Sinchpal pursuant to the advertisement dated 20.9.2011 had been dispensed with. The wait list of 26 persons had been cancelled vide order dated 2.4.2012. Further the notification dated 14.9.2011 issued by the Engineer-in-Chief, Department of Irrigation, U.P., whereunder the advertisement dated 20.9.2011 was issued, had also been stayed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 60334 of 2011 vide order dated 3.11.2011.
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - A P Sahi - Full Document
1