Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.25 seconds)
Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd vs Central Electricity Regulatory ... on 19 September, 2023
cites
Article 39 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 5 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 108 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960
Section 76 in The Electricity Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
Section 79 in The Electricity Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
M. Arul Jothi & Anr. vs Lajja Bal (Deceased) & Anr. on 29 February, 2000
a. M. Arul Jothi & Another v. Lajja Bal & Another, reported in (2000)3
SCC 2003;
Section 111 in The Electricity Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
Ramkishore Lal vs Kamal Narain on 22 November, 1962
b. Ramkishorelal v. Kamal Narayan, AIR 1963 SC 890
"12. The golden Rule of construction, it has been said, is to
ascertain the intention of the parties to the instrument after
considering all the words, in their ordinary, natural sense. To
ascertain this intention the Court had to consider the relevant
portion of the document as a whole and also to take into account
the circumstances under which the particular words were used.
Very often the status and the training of the parties using the words
have to be taken into consideration. It has to be borne in mind that
very many words are used in more than one sense and that sense
differs in different circumstances. Again, even where a particular
word has to a trained conveyancer a clear and definite significance
and one can be sure about the sense in which such conveyancer
Page 22 of 29
Judgement in Appeal No. 346 of 2023 & IA Nos. 985 and 2110 of 2022
would use it, it may not be reasonable and proper to give the same
strict interpretation of the word when used by one who is not so
equally skilled in the art of convincing. Sometimes it happens in the
case of documents as regards disposition of properties, whether
they are testamentary or non-testamentary instruments, that there
is a clear conflict between what is said in one part of the document
and in another. A familiar instance of this is where in an earlier part
of the document some property is given absolutely to one person
but later on, other directions about the same property are given
which conflict with and take away from the absolute title given in
the earlier portion. What is to be done where this happens? It is well
settled that in case of such a conflict the earlier disposition of
absolute title should prevail and the later directions of disposition
should be disregarded as unsuccessful attempts to restrict the title
already given.