Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.41 seconds)
Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And ... vs Ramkishan Shrikishan Jhaver And Ors. on 9 August, 1967 cites

State Of Rajasthan vs Leela Jain on 16 September, 1964

10. Finally, in State Of Rajasthan v. Leela Jain, the question arose whether the proviso in the Act under consideration there was a limiting provision to the main provision or was a substantive provision in itself. This court observed that "so far as a general principal of construction of a proviso is concerned, it has been broadly stated that the function of a proviso is to limit the main part of the section and carve out something which but for the proviso would have been within the operation part." But it was further observed that the proviso in that particular case was really not proviso in the accepted sense but an independent legislative provision by which to a remedy which was prohibited by the main part of the section, an alternative was provided.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 82 - N R Ayyangar - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madhya ... vs Nandlal Bhandari & Sons (Private) Ltd. on 13 March, 1962

9. Again in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Nandlal Bhandari & Sons, it was observed that "through ordinarily a proviso restricts rather than enlarge the meaning of the provision to which it is appended, at times the legislature embodies a substantive provision in a proviso. The question whether a proviso is by way of an exception or a condition to the substantive provision, or whether it is in itself a substantive provision, must be determined on the substance of the proviso and not its form."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 19 - Full Document
1