Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.23 seconds)Section 2 in The Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 [Entire Act]
Section 51 in The Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 [Entire Act]
Musa Jena And Ors. vs Panu Charan Naik And Ors. on 2 July, 1980
The decisions of Hon'ble R.N. Misra, J. (as he then was) in Abhimanyu Panda v. Digambar Beura (1976-42 Cut LT 400) and Hon'ble S. Acharya, J. in Musa Jena v. Panu Charan Naik, (AIR 1980 Orissa 183) which have taken a different view do not, in my opinion, represent the correct law and I overrule the same.
Section 3 in The Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 [Entire Act]
Anandji Haridas & Co. Pvt. Ltd vs Engineering Mazdoor Sangh & Anr on 13 February, 1975
21. As a general principle of interpretation, where the words of a statute are plain, precise and unambiguous, the intention of the Legislature is to be gathered from the language of the statute itself and no external evidence, such as Parliamentary Debates, Reports of the Committees of the Legislature or even the statement made by the Minister on the introduction of a measure or by the framers of the Act is admissible to construe those words. It is only where the statute is not exhaustive or where its language is ambiguous, uncertain, clouded or susceptible of more than one meaning or shades of meaning that external evidence as to the evils, if any, which the statute was intended to remedy, or of the circumstances which led to the passing to the statute may be looked into for the purpose of ascertaining the object which the Legislature had in view in using the words in question. If the precise words used are plain and unambiguous, they are bound to be construed in their ordinary meanings. (See Anandji Haridas & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Engineering Mazdoor Sangh, AIR 1975 SC 946 and Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1976 SC 331).
Carew And Company Ltd vs Unlon Of India on 22 August, 1975
If the language used in a statute can be construed widely so as to salvage the remedial intendment, the court must adopt it. When two interpretations are feasible, that which advances the remedy and suppresses the evil as the Legislature envisioned must find favour with the court. (See Carew and Company Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1975 SC 2260). Ordinarily, a court cannot cut down the definitional amplitude given in a statute.
State Of West Bengal vs Sudhir Chandra Ghose & Ors on 9 November, 1976
(See State of West Bengal v. Sudhir Chandra Ghose AIR 1976 SC 2599). It would not be just and proper, therefore, to cut down the amplitude of the expression 'any land' in Section 4(4) of the Act by saying that in accordance with the other provisions of the statute, this can only mean agricultural land or land which can be consolidable although one cannot be oblivious of the well settled rule of interpretation that the court is entitled and indeed, bound when construing the terms of any provision in a statute, to construe any other part of the Act which throws light on the intention of the Legislature and it may show that the particular provision ought not to be construed as it would be alone and apart from the rest of the Act. It is well settled that a statutory provision cannot be interpreted in a way which defeats the very object of the Act. It is equally well settled that the Legislature does not waste words or introduce useless or redundant provisions.
Balabhagas Hulaschand vs State Of Orissa on 9 December, 1975
(See Balabhagas Hulaschand v. State of Orissa, AIR 1976 SC 1016).