Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.27 seconds)

D. Saibaba vs Bar Council Of India & Anr on 6 May, 2003

In D. Saibaba v. Bar Council of India ((2003) 6 SCC 186) the Apex Court held that, where the law provides a remedy to a person, the provision has to be so construed in case of W.P.(C) No. 2183 of 2012 -: 11 :- ambiguity as to make the availing of the remedy practical and the exercise of power conferred on the authority meaningful and effective. A construction which would render the provision nugatory ought to be avoided. So far as the commencement of period of limitation for filing the review petition is concerned the expression 'the date of that order' as occurring in Section 48AA of the Advocates Act, 1961, has to be construed as meaning the date of communication or knowledge of the order to the review- petitioner. Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the judgment read thus;
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 120 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Raj Kumar Dey And Others vs Tarapada Dey And Others on 14 September, 1987

In Raj Kumar Dey v. Tarapada Dey (1987) 4 SCC 398 this Court pressed into service two legal maxims guiding and assisting the Court while resolving an issue as to calculation of the period of limitation prescribed, namely, (i) the law does not compel a man to do that which he could not possibly perform, and (ii) an act of the court shall prejudice no man. These principles support the view taken by us hereinabove. Any view to the contrary would lead to an absurdity and anomaly. An order may be passed without W.P.(C) No. 2183 of 2012 -: 12 :- the knowledge of anyone except its author, may be kept in the file and consigned to record room or the file may lie unattended, unwittingly or by carelessness. In either case, the remedy against the order would be lost by limitation though the person aggrieved or affected does not even know what order has been passed. Such an interpretation cannot be countenanced.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 142 - S Mukharji - Full Document
1