Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.22 seconds)The State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others vs Babu Ram Upadhya on 25 November, 1960
In Rubber House v. Excellsior Needle Industries Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1989 SC 1160, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the provisions of the Haryana (Control of Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1976, which provided for mentioning the amount of arrears of rent in the application and after placing reliance upon large number of Judgments, including Bhikraj Jaipuria v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 113 ; Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd., (supra) ; K. Kamaraja Nadar v. Kunju Thevar, AIR 1958 SC 687 ; Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, AIR 1955 SC 233 ; State of U.P. v. Babu Ram Upadhya (supra) and Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 494, the provision was held to be directory though the word "shall" has been used in the statutory provision for the reason that non-compliance of the rule, i.e., non-mentioning of the quantum of arrears of rent did involve no invalidating consequence and also did not visit any penalty.
Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd vs Municlpal Board, Rampur on 30 October, 1964
In Rubber House v. Excellsior Needle Industries Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1989 SC 1160, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the provisions of the Haryana (Control of Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1976, which provided for mentioning the amount of arrears of rent in the application and after placing reliance upon large number of Judgments, including Bhikraj Jaipuria v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 113 ; Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd., (supra) ; K. Kamaraja Nadar v. Kunju Thevar, AIR 1958 SC 687 ; Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, AIR 1955 SC 233 ; State of U.P. v. Babu Ram Upadhya (supra) and Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 494, the provision was held to be directory though the word "shall" has been used in the statutory provision for the reason that non-compliance of the rule, i.e., non-mentioning of the quantum of arrears of rent did involve no invalidating consequence and also did not visit any penalty.
State Of Mysore & Ors vs V. K. Kangan & Ors on 21 August, 1975
In Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd., Rampar v. Municipal Board, Rampur, AIR 1965 SC 895 and State of Mysore v. V.K. Kangan, AIR 1975 SC 2190, whether a provision is mandatory or directory, would, in the ultimate analysis, depend upon the Intent of the law-maker and that has to be gathered not only from the phraseology of the provision but also by considering its nature, its design and the consequence which would follow from construing it in one way or the other.
Sharif-Ud-Din vs Abdul Gani Lone on 12 November, 1979
In Sharif-ud-din v. Abdul Gani Lone, AIR 1980 SC 303, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 89 of the J and K Representation of People Act, 1957, held that the difference between a mandatory and directory rule is that the former requires strict observance while in the case of latter, substantial compliance of the rule may be enough and where the statute provides that failure to make observance of a particular rule would lead to a specific consequence, the provision has to be construed as mandatory. The Apex Court held as under :
Ganesh Prasad Sah Kesari & Anr vs Lakshmi Narayan Gupta on 18 April, 1985
12. Similar view has been reiterated in Ganesh Prasad Sah Kesari and Anr. v. Lakshmi Narayan Gupta, AIR 1985 SC 964 ; B.P. Khemka Pvt. Ltd. v. Birendra Kumar Bhowmick and Anr., AIR 1987 SC 1010 ; Owners and Parties Interested in M. V. "Vali Pero" v. Fernandeo Lopez and Ors., AIR 1989 SC 2206 ; Lakshmanasami Gounder v. C.I.T., Selvamani and Ors., (1992) 1 SCC 91 ; Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1997 SC 3400 ; Collector of Customs, Calcutta v. Tin Plate Co. of India Ltd., (1997) 10 SCC 538 and Dinkar Anna Patil and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (1999) 1 SCC 354.
B.P. Khemka Pvt. Ltd vs Birendra Kumar Bhowmick & Anr on 6 March, 1987
12. Similar view has been reiterated in Ganesh Prasad Sah Kesari and Anr. v. Lakshmi Narayan Gupta, AIR 1985 SC 964 ; B.P. Khemka Pvt. Ltd. v. Birendra Kumar Bhowmick and Anr., AIR 1987 SC 1010 ; Owners and Parties Interested in M. V. "Vali Pero" v. Fernandeo Lopez and Ors., AIR 1989 SC 2206 ; Lakshmanasami Gounder v. C.I.T., Selvamani and Ors., (1992) 1 SCC 91 ; Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1997 SC 3400 ; Collector of Customs, Calcutta v. Tin Plate Co. of India Ltd., (1997) 10 SCC 538 and Dinkar Anna Patil and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (1999) 1 SCC 354.
Lakshmanasami Gounder vs C.I.T. Selvamani And Ors on 1 November, 1991
12. Similar view has been reiterated in Ganesh Prasad Sah Kesari and Anr. v. Lakshmi Narayan Gupta, AIR 1985 SC 964 ; B.P. Khemka Pvt. Ltd. v. Birendra Kumar Bhowmick and Anr., AIR 1987 SC 1010 ; Owners and Parties Interested in M. V. "Vali Pero" v. Fernandeo Lopez and Ors., AIR 1989 SC 2206 ; Lakshmanasami Gounder v. C.I.T., Selvamani and Ors., (1992) 1 SCC 91 ; Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1997 SC 3400 ; Collector of Customs, Calcutta v. Tin Plate Co. of India Ltd., (1997) 10 SCC 538 and Dinkar Anna Patil and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (1999) 1 SCC 354.
Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan vs State Of Gujarat on 3 September, 1997
12. Similar view has been reiterated in Ganesh Prasad Sah Kesari and Anr. v. Lakshmi Narayan Gupta, AIR 1985 SC 964 ; B.P. Khemka Pvt. Ltd. v. Birendra Kumar Bhowmick and Anr., AIR 1987 SC 1010 ; Owners and Parties Interested in M. V. "Vali Pero" v. Fernandeo Lopez and Ors., AIR 1989 SC 2206 ; Lakshmanasami Gounder v. C.I.T., Selvamani and Ors., (1992) 1 SCC 91 ; Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1997 SC 3400 ; Collector of Customs, Calcutta v. Tin Plate Co. of India Ltd., (1997) 10 SCC 538 and Dinkar Anna Patil and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (1999) 1 SCC 354.
Collector Of Customs, Calcutta vs Tin Plate Co. Of India Ltd. on 3 October, 1996
12. Similar view has been reiterated in Ganesh Prasad Sah Kesari and Anr. v. Lakshmi Narayan Gupta, AIR 1985 SC 964 ; B.P. Khemka Pvt. Ltd. v. Birendra Kumar Bhowmick and Anr., AIR 1987 SC 1010 ; Owners and Parties Interested in M. V. "Vali Pero" v. Fernandeo Lopez and Ors., AIR 1989 SC 2206 ; Lakshmanasami Gounder v. C.I.T., Selvamani and Ors., (1992) 1 SCC 91 ; Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1997 SC 3400 ; Collector of Customs, Calcutta v. Tin Plate Co. of India Ltd., (1997) 10 SCC 538 and Dinkar Anna Patil and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (1999) 1 SCC 354.