Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.79 seconds)Section 42 in Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 [Entire Act]
Section 22 in Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 [Entire Act]
Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950
Section 19 in Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
George Da Costa vs Controller Of Estate Duty In ... on 28 October, 1966
In the above case no argument was made whether the words "for non-availability of suitable candidate" form a genus or category or not. The words "or otherwise" were given a restricted meaning on the ground that the protection, which had been conferred by the carry forward rule contained in Sub-rule (2) was of very limited nature available for a period of one year only and the mischief which might result on account of giving wide contention to the expression "or otherwise" as suggested by the learned Deputy Government Advocate was much greater than the benefit which might accrue to the Govt. servants on account of such a wide construction. The facts and circumstances in the above case were entirely different. In the case before me the question is regarding giving authority to persons other than the police officers to empower them to detain vehicles used without certificate of registration or permit. The intention of the Legislature is very clear in using the words "or other person" that person other than police officer can also be authorised by the State Government. There is no question of applying the rule of ejusdem generis in the present case, firstly; because the Word any police officer does not constitute a class or category and secondly, the intention of the legislature in using the words "or other person" is manifest to show that the State Government could also authorise persons other than the police officer. The entire scheme of Section 129A shows that the legislature intended to empower the State Government to authorise other persons also apart from the police officer for the purpose of exercising power Under Section 129A of the Act.