Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.35 seconds)
Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport ... vs The State Transport Appellate ... on 7 November, 1973 cites

Aswini Kumar Ghose And Anr. vs Arabinda Bose And Anr. on 12 December, 1952

11. It is true that the non obstante clause is not harmonious with the enacting clause, because the former is restricted to Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 64, but the latter takes within its sweep the entire amending Act. The rule of construction in such cases is that if the enacting clause is plain and unambiguous, it must be given its full effect and its meaning and application cannot be cut down by reference to the non obstante clause; the enacting clause must, where it is clear, be taken to control the non obstante clause; See Aswini Kumar v. Arabinda Bose, AIR 1952 SC 369 at pp. 376.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 472 - Full Document

The Dominion Of India And Another vs Shrinbai A. Irani And Another on 14 May, 1954

It was argued in that case on the basis of the non obstante clause that Section 3 only continued requisitions which would have expired because of the expiration of the Defence of India Act, 1939, and that it did not continue a requisition order which would have ceased to be operative and come to an end by reason of the limitation of time contained in the order itself. This contention was negatived on the ground that when the words of the enactment are clear their operation cannot be cut down by the non obstante clause which in such cases must be taken to be inserted by way of abundant caution. To quote their Lordships:
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 83 - N H Bhagwati - Full Document
1   2 Next