Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.87 seconds)
K. Raghuram Babu vs Director General Of Railway Protection ... on 7 September, 2001 cites

Shree Jaya Mahal Co-Operative Housing ... vs M/S. Zenith Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd. And ... on 10 October, 1990

I am not reluctant to adopt a purposive construction where to apply the literal meaning of the legislative language used would lead to results which would clearly defeat the purposes of the Act. But in doing so the task on which a Court of justice is engaged remains one of construction, even where this involves reading into the Act words which are not expressly included in it. Kammins Ballrooms Company Limited v. Zenith Investments (Torquay) Limited (1971 AC 850) provides an instance of this; but in that case the three conditions that must be fulfilled in order to justify this course were satisfied. First, it was possible to determine from a consideration of the provisions of the Act read as a whole precisely what the mischief was that it was the purpose of the Act to remedy; secondly, it was apparent that the draftsman and Parliamenl had by inadvertence overlooked, and so omitted to deal with an eventuality that required to be dealt with if the purpose of the Act was to be achieved; and thirdly, it was possible to state with certainty what were the additional words that would have been inserted by the draftsman and approved by Parliament had their attention been drawn to the omission before the Bill passed into law. Unless this third condition is fulfilled any attempt by a Court of justice to repair the omission in the Act cannot be justified as an exercise of its jurisdiction to determine what is the meaning of a written law which Parliament has passed.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 23 - Full Document

Bombay Metropolitan Transport ... vs Employees Of Bmtc (Cidco) Maharashtra ... on 10 April, 1987

In B.P. Corporation Limited v. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union, , the Apex Court was considering a question relating to the representation of an employee in a disciplinary proceedings through another employee who though not an employee of the appellant-Corporation was nevertheless a member of the trade union. Para 14 (4) (ba) of the model standing orders and clause 29 (4) of the draft standing orders were noticed by the Apex Court thus:
Bombay High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 3 - S N Variava - Full Document

M/S Cipla Ltd. & Ors vs Ripu Daman Bhanot & Anr on 12 April, 1999

In M/s. Cipla's case a question arose whether a person against whom a departmental proceeding has been initiated would be entitled to avail of the assistance of a co-representative of his choice in those proceedings. In the aforementioned situation, the Apex Court held that he had no absolute right to be represented by an advocate and if a right to be represented by a co-workman is given to the delinquent the departmental proceedings would not be bad only for that reason. A right to continue in a civil service or union service is a right of property. Such right has been held by the Apex Court to be a right to life as adumbrated under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is, thus, one thing to say that nobody has an absolute right to be represented through a lawyer or another friend but it is another thing to say that he had been conferred with such a right. But the same, in effect and substance, has been denied to him. Such a law, in our opinion, would not stand the test of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. A delinquent takes the services of his friend only when he is not in a position to defend himself before a departmental proceedings particularly in a case where he is charged with a very serious and complicated matter and in the event he is held guilty, he would not only be dismissed from service but may also face criminal prosecution. Right of cross-examination, as noticed hereinbefore, is a valuable right. Truth can only be arrived at by cross-examining the witnesses.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 79 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

T. Devender And Ors. vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh Represented ... on 19 August, 1992

In Devender v. State of A.P, (DB) a Division Bench of this Court invalidated the A.P. Mandal Praja Parishad, Zilla Praja Parishad (Amendment) Act, 1991 which amended Sections 26 and 57 of the principal Act virtually taking away the effective power ofthe elected heads of the local bodies. Therein the grounds of challenge inter alia included that the impugned Act is irrational since the Amendment Act seeks to achieve a dubious purpose, unrelated to the objects of the amendment. It has been observed therein:
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 21 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 Next