Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.42 seconds)
Deewan Singh & Ors. Ã Appellants vs Rajendra Pd. Ardevi & Ors. Ã Respondents on 4 January, 2007
cites
Section 53 in Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959
Section 77 in Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
N.C. Dhoundial vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 December, 2003
Although there is no ambiguity, even if there be any, the marginal
note may be taken into consideration for the purpose of proper construction
of the provision. [See N.C. Dhoundial v. Union of India, (2004) 2 SCC 579]
Once it is held that Chapter X of the Act applies, the court must bear
in mind that the provisions contained in the said Chapter provide for a set of
provisions in regard to the management of trust. There does not exist any
other provisions providing for the same.
Ashok Lanka & Anr vs Rishi Dixit & Ors on 11 May, 2005
Although golden rule of interpretation, viz., literal rule should be
given effect to, if it is to be held that the Devasthan Commissioner appointed
under Section 7 of the Act would be an agency of the State, the same would
lead to an absurdity or anomaly. It is a well-known principle of law that
where literal interpretation shall give rise to an anomaly or absurdity, the
same should be avoided. [See Ashok Lanka v. Rishi Dixit, (2005) 5 SCC
598 and M.P. Gopalakrishnan Nair v. State of Kerala,(2005) 11 SCC 45]
It is also well-settled that the entire statute must be first read as a
whole then section by section, clause by clause, phrase by phrase and word
by word.
M.P. Gopalakrishnan Nair & Anr vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 20 April, 2005
Although golden rule of interpretation, viz., literal rule should be
given effect to, if it is to be held that the Devasthan Commissioner appointed
under Section 7 of the Act would be an agency of the State, the same would
lead to an absurdity or anomaly. It is a well-known principle of law that
where literal interpretation shall give rise to an anomaly or absurdity, the
same should be avoided. [See Ashok Lanka v. Rishi Dixit, (2005) 5 SCC
598 and M.P. Gopalakrishnan Nair v. State of Kerala,(2005) 11 SCC 45]
It is also well-settled that the entire statute must be first read as a
whole then section by section, clause by clause, phrase by phrase and word
by word.
Reserve Bank Of India vs Peerless General Finance & Investment ... on 22 January, 1987
[See Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and
Investment Co. Ltd. and Others, (1987) 1 SCC 424] The relevant provisions
of the statute must, thus, be read harmoniously.