State Of Punjab & Ors vs Tara Singh Shahi on 17 April, 1996
This court is not disputing the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in ICAR and Anr. v. T.K. Suryanarayan (supra) and State of Punjab and Ors. v. Tara Singh (supra).
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.21 seconds)Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Amrik Singh And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 11 April, 1980
11. This court is also of the considered view that the submissions of Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar Singh, the learned Counsel for the private respondents has force of law in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. Mr. Tarunkumar Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the private respondents also submits that it is not the fault of the private respondents for not completing Male Health Workers' Course for one year, but it is the fault of the State Government for not sending the private respondents for Male Health Workers' Course for one year. But by sending them to the Male Health Workers' training course for 3 (three) months the private respondents should not be suffered for not completing Male Health Worker's training course for one year, according to Mr. Tarunkumar Singh, the learned Counsel and for such submissions he placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Shri Amrik Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. of the SCC in Amrik Singh and Ors. v. Union of India (supra) reads as follows:
Deena @ Deena Dayal Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Others on 23 September, 1983
19. The counsel for Jagriti has referred us to several decisions viz. Gopal Upadhyaya v. Union of India 1986 Supp SCC 501, Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat , Deena v. Union of India and Krishena Kumar v. Union of India . None of the decisions are apposite. They refer to the principle of precedent which is distinct from the principle of res judicata. A precedent operates to bind in a similar situations in a distinct case. Res judicata operates to bind parties to proceedings for no other reason, but that there should be an end to litigation.
Krishena Kumar And Anr. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors on 13 July, 1990
19. The counsel for Jagriti has referred us to several decisions viz. Gopal Upadhyaya v. Union of India 1986 Supp SCC 501, Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat , Deena v. Union of India and Krishena Kumar v. Union of India . None of the decisions are apposite. They refer to the principle of precedent which is distinct from the principle of res judicata. A precedent operates to bind in a similar situations in a distinct case. Res judicata operates to bind parties to proceedings for no other reason, but that there should be an end to litigation.
Union Of India & Ors vs N.Y. Apte & Ors on 4 August, 1998
12. Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar Singh, learned Counsel for the private respondents by relying on the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Union of India and Ors. v. N.Y. Apte and Ors. submits that equation of the training courses in the Male Health Workers' training prescribed from time to time under the policy decision of the Manipur Government as well as the Central Government would be determined by the State Government for the purpose of promoting its employees, i.e. the Male Health Workers, of the Health Department, Govt. of Manipur to the next higher post of Male Health Supervisor under the said Recruitment Rules for the post of Male Health Supervisor, 1993 framed by the Governor of Manipur in exercise of his powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
U.O.I. Thr. Govt. Of Pondicherry & Anr vs V. Ramakrishnan & Ors on 7 October, 2005
14. It is settled principle of law that validity of the rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India shall continue to operate until replaced or repealed by the validly framed new rules. Reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India through the Govt. of Pondicherry and Anr. v. V. Ramakrishan and Ors. . Since the Recruitment rules for the post of Male Health Supervisor, 1993 is still valid, this Court is to see as to how the column No. 11 of the Recruitment Rules for the post of Male Health Supervisor, 1993 is to be construed or interpreted.
Dadi Jagannadham vs Jammulu Ramulu & Ors on 23 August, 2001
15. It is fairly well settled principles of interpretation of rules that the Court must proceed on the assumption that the legislature did not make a mistake and that it did what it intended to do. The co must, as far as possible, adopted construction which will carry out the obvious intention of the legislature. The court cannot add words to a statute or read words into it which are not there, especially when the literal reading produces an intelligible result. The court cannot add the legislature's defective phrasing of an Act, or add and mend, and, by construction, make up deficiencies which are there. Para 13 of the SCC in Dadi Jaganndham v. Jammulu Ramulu and Ors. reads as follows:
Union Of India And Ors vs Filip Tiago De Gama Of Vedem Vasco De Gama on 30 November, 1989
12. The rival pleas regarding rewriting of statute and casus omissus need careful consideration. It is well-settled principle in law that the court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous. A statute is an edict of the legislature. The language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of legislative intent. The first and primary rule of construction is that the intention of the legislation must be found in the words used by the legislature itself. The question is not what may be supposed and has been intended but what has been said. "Statutes should be construed, not as theorems of Euclid", Judge Learned Hand said, "but words must be construed with some imagination of the purposes which lie behind them". (See Lenigh Valley Coal Co. v. Yensavage 218 FR 547) The view was reiterated in Union of India v. Filip Tiago de Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama .
M/S.Rishabh Agro Industries Ltd vs P.N.B. Capital Services Ltd on 9 May, 2000
14. While interpreting a provision the court only interprets the law and cannot legislate it. If a provision of law is misused and subjected to the abuse of process of law, it is for the legislature to amend, modify or repeal it, if deemed necessary. [See Rishabh Agro Industries Ltd. v. P.N.B. Capital Services Ltd. ] The legislative casus omissus cannot be supplied by judicial interpretative process. Language of Section 6(1) is plain and unambiguous.