Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 43 (1.85 seconds)
Sarwan Kumar Jhabarmal Choudhary vs Sachin Shyamsundar Begrajka on 16 October, 2025 cites

George Anthony Harris vs Millicent Spencer on 11 August, 1932

(C) The judgments of learned Single Judges of this Court in George Anthony Harris Vs. Millicent Spencer, AIR (1933) Bom. 370 and Sharad Shankarrao Mane and etc. Vs. Ashabai Shripati Mane, AIR (1997) Bom. 275 do not lay 44 ::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2025 21:58:45 ::: down the correct position of law in the context of Section 263 of the Succession Act. Resultantly, we uphold the view of the learned Single Judge (Manish Pitale, J.) from which order the present reference arises.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

Bihta Co-Operative Development Cane ... vs The Bank Of Bihar & Ors on 12 October, 1966

In Bihta Co-op. Development and Cane Marketing Union Ltd. v. Bank of Bihar [AIR 1967 SC 389] this Court was called upon to consider Explanation to Section 48(1) of the Bihar and Orissa Cooperative Societies Act, 1935. This Court observed that the Court should not go only by the label. The Court observed that an explanation must be read ordinarily to clear up any ambiguity in the main section and it cannot be construed to widen the ambit of the section. However, if on a true reading of an Explanation it appears to the Court in a given case that the effect of the Explanation is to widen the scope of the main section then effect must be given to the legislative intent. It was held that in all such cases the Court has to find out the true intention of the legislature. Therefore, there is no Single yardstick to decide whether an Explanation is enacted to clarify the ambiguity or whether it is enacted to widen the scope of the main section...."
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 132 - G K Mitter - Full Document

S. Sundaram Pillai, Etc vs V.R. Pattabiraman Etc on 24 January, 1985

(emphasis supplied) S. Sundaram Pillai v. Pattabiraman, (1985) 1 SCC 591 "46. ...It is now well settled that an Explanation added to a statutory provision is not a substantive provision in any sense of the term but as the plain meaning of the word itself shows it is merely meant to explain or clarify certain ambiguities which may have crept in the statutory provision. Sarathi in Interpretation of Statutes while 31 ::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2025 21:58:45 ::: dwelling on the various aspects of an Explanation observes as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 68 - Cited by 588 - S M Ali - Full Document

Dattatraya Govind Mahajan & Ors. Etc vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 27 January, 1977

Dattatraya Govind Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 2 SCC 548 "9. ...It is true that the orthodox function of an explanation is to explain the meaning and effect of the main provision to which it is an explanation and to clear up any doubt or ambiguity in it. But ultimately it is the intention of the legislature which is paramount and mere use of a label cannot control or deflect such intention. It must be remembered that the legislature has different ways of expressing itself and in the last analysis the words used by the legislature alone are the true repository of the intent of the legislature and they must be construed having regard to the context and setting in which they occur. Therefore, even though the provision in question has been called an Explanation, we must construe it according to its plain language and not on any a priori considerations...."
Supreme Court of India Cites 50 - Cited by 130 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next