Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.46 seconds)Om Prakash And Ors vs Smt. Sunhari Devi And Ors on 2 March, 1993
25. Om Prakash v. Smt. Sunhari Devi, 1993 (1) ARC 473 was the case decided by their Lordships of the Surpeme Court where it was indicated that the High Court should restrict itself to question of law only and should not enter into reassessment of evidence nor it can dismiss the application on the ground that the landlord has failed to give particulars of the residential premises. In that case the High Court reassessed the evidence and in the opinion of the High Court the findings of the Appellate Authority was perverse. There is no denying that the High Court in the exercise of writ jurisdiction need not reassess the evidence.
Section 22 in The U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 [Entire Act]
The U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972
State Of U.P vs Col. Sujan Singh And Ors on 15 April, 1964
In State of U.P. v. Singhere Singh, AIR 1964 SC 358 : (1964 (1) Cri LJ 263) it was pointed out at page 361 of AIR.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ganpat Ladha vs Sashikant Vishnu Shinde on 21 February, 1978
(See S. Ganpath Raj v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1992 (5) (JT) SC 310; Ganpat Latha v. Shashikant Vishnu Shindc, 1978 (2) SCC 573 : (AIR 1978 SC 955). The provisions of social welfare legislation are not to be interpreted like a simple statute, the Court could be failing in its duty if it tries to interpret like a simple piece of legislation. There must be a liberal interpretation in favour of the persons for whose benefit the particular provisions
have been enacted. The Court must adopt' social beneficial rule of construction in such matters. In case a particular provision is capable of two interpretations that should be preferred which fulfils the policy of the Act and is more beneficial to the persons in whose interest the Act has been passed.
Bharat Singh vs Management Of New Delhi Tuberculosis ... on 4 April, 1986
(See Bharat Singh v. Management of New Delhi, AIR 1986 SC 842.
Jaswant Singh Mathura Singh And Anr vs Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation And ... on 1 October, 1991
11. It may be noticed that in this Fourth Proviso the word "shall" is used by the legislature to make it mandatory. Under S. 21(2) of the Act the word "may" has been used. Normally the word "may" is directory and "shall" is mandatory. But sometimes word "may" is used as mandatory and "shall" as directory according to the context and the object, keeping in view the public interest and injurious effect of non-compliance. But where the word "shall" and "may" has been used in the same section, in that event, it is manifest that legislature has used both the expressions after ascertaining its meaning. In that event it is not open to the Court to interpret word "shall" as directory and "may" as mandatory, In the Fourth Proviso also word "shall" has been used in the mandatory sense to convey a command. To put it differently, it is a command from the legislature to the prescribed authority to read the Fourth Proviso with R. 16(2)(a) of the Rules. (See Jaswam Singh Mathura Singh v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, (1992) Supply (1) SCC 5 : AIR 1991 SC 2130.
1