Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.25 seconds)

Ramji Missir And Another vs The State Of Bihar on 6 December, 1962

As observed by Ayyanger J: Though the word 'may' might connote merely an enabling or a permissive power in the sense of the usual phrase 'it shall be lawful', it is also capable of being construed as referring to a compellable duty, particularly when it refers to a power conferred on a court or other judicial authority (Ramji Missar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1963 SC 1088). It has, therefore, been held that the words "an order under this Act may be made by any court" as they occur in section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, imposed a duty to pass an order Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SAN TRILOK SINGH under the Act subject to conditions and limitations imposed by the SAVNER Date: 2021.09.23 10:45:59 IST Act and that a court had no unfettered discretion in refusing to pass 6 CRR No.2071/2021 an order when an occasion to pass the same arose within the four corners of the Act (Ibid, P.1093). Similarly, the words "the court may pass a decree for eviction", have been construed as not conferring a discretion for refusing to pass a decree where a landlord in a suit has proved the fulfilment of all conditions entitling him to possession, and the court in such cases is bound to pass a decree in his favour in spite of the use of the word "may"
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 61 - N R Ayyangar - Full Document
1   2 Next