Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 36 (0.44 seconds)Section 23 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Section 25 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Section 10 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi vs S.Teja Singh on 5 November, 1958
16. The Courts will have to reject that construction which will defeat the plain intention of the legislation even though there may be some inexactitude in the language used. (See Salmon v. Duncombe, AC at p. 364, Curtis v. Stovin, referred to in S. Teja Singh case).
Gursahai Saigal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Punjab on 31 August, 1962
15. A statute is designed to be workable and the interpretation thereof by a Court should be a secure that object unless crucial omission or clear direction makes that end unattainable. (See : Whitney v. IRC, AC at p. 52 referred to in CIT v. S. Teja Singh and Gursahai Saigal v. CIT.)
Mohan Kumar Singhania And Ors. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc. Etc on 13 September, 1991
The principles indicated in the said cases were reiterated by this Court in Mohan Kumar Singhania v. Union of India.
Shri Balaganesan Metals vs Shri M.N. Shanmugham Chetty & Ors on 23 April, 1987
In the case of Shri Balganeshan Metals v. Shanmugham Chetty , while interpreting the term 'any' the Apex Court in Paragraph 18 has stated thus:
The Administrator Municipalcommittee ... vs Ramji Lal Bagla And Others on 26 July, 1995
In this regard, we may fruitfully refer to the decision rendered in the case of Administrator, Municipal Committee Charkhi Dadri and Anr. v. Ramji Bagla and Ors. , wherein it has been held that the absence of provisions for consequence in case of non-compliance with the requirements would indicate directory nature despite the use of word 'shall'.