Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 104 (0.80 seconds)
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs Rabindra Chandra Chamaria And Ors. on 14 March, 1990 cites

Kehar Singh & Ors vs State (Delhi Admn.) on 3 August, 1988

In this context the well-known principle of construction is to be kept in mind particularly those laid down by Supreme Court in Kehar Singh v. The State (Delhi Administration) (supra). The question is whether it would include proceedings for violation of the provisions of any Act other than the Companies Act. It is no doubt true that the language used is "in any proceeding" but that does not mean all proceedings whether under this Act "or otherwise. The Companies Act was enacted in 1956. It deals with the Companies primarily. Various duties and liabilities have been imposed under the said Act and offences have been created for non-performance of such duties. The offences created under the Act are offences relating to the performance of certain duties under this Act. The expression 'any proceeding' in this section cannot be taken out of this context and treated in isolation without any refers ence to the context. That will not be the correct approach. This is also violative of all canons of construction. That would not amount to interpretation of a clear language, whether it is clear or not, should be ascertained only after consideration of the related provisions. The expression 'any proceeding' must be considered in the light of the other provisions of the Companies Act. The various offences created would appear from the various sections of the Act particularly Sections 59, 60, 62, 63, 68, 142, 162, 168, 207, 218, 272, 374, 420, 423, 538 to 545, 589, 606, 608, 609 of the Act. In the background of these provisions, if Section 633 is sought to be interpreted, in our opinion it must be restricted to proceedings under the said Act only.
Supreme Court of India Cites 104 - Cited by 684 - G L Oza - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next