Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (1.07 seconds)Salem Advocate Bar Association,Tamil ... vs Union Of India on 2 August, 2005
The Court has to consider the purpose for which the provision had
been made, its nature, the intention of the legislature in making
the provision, the serious general inconvenience or injustice to
persons resulting therefrom whether the provision is read one way
or the other, the relation of the particular provision to other
provisions dealing with the same subject as well as other
considerations which may arise on the fact of a particular case,
including the language of the provision. The said decision of the
Constitution Bench was followed by the Supreme Court in Salem
18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.28555/2022, etc. Batch
Advocate Bar vs. Union of India {2005 (6) SCC 344}. While doing so,
the Supreme Court pointed out therein that our laws on procedure
are grounded on a principle of natural justice which requires that
men should not be condemned unheard, that decision should not
be reached behind their backs, that proceedings that affect their
lives and properties should not continue in their absence and that
they should not be precluded from participating in them.
Therefore, we have to interpret Article 226(3), consistent with the
interpretation given by the Constitution Bench. If the interpretation
given to clause (3) of Article 226 would result in putting one of the
parties to grave injustice, without any opportunity of hearing, the
provision cannot be taken to be mandatory but can be taken only
as directory.
Sharif-Ud-Din vs Abdul Gani Lone on 12 November, 1979
In Sharif-Ud-Din vs. Abdul Gani Lone {AIR 1980 SC 303},
the Supreme Court indicated that the question whether a provision
of law is mandatory or not depends upon its language, the context
in which it is enacted and its object. The Court made an important
observation, which will resolve the problem for us and hence it is
extracted as follows:-
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 3A in The National Highways Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 3C in The National Highways Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd vs Municlpal Board, Rampur on 30 October, 1964
In Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd vs. The Municipal
Board {AIR 1965 SC 895}, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme
Court held that the question whether a particular provision is
mandatory or directory, cannot be resolved by laying down any
general rule and that it would depend upon the facts of each case.
Section 3D in The National Highways Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
1