Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.18 seconds)
Narender Singh Kadian vs Dhanpati And Ors. on 13 July, 1998 cites

State Of Madhya Pradesh & Anr vs Dadabhoy'S New Chirimiri Ponri Hill ... on 29 November, 1971

9. There cannot be any dispute that the rule of construction is that a Court construing a provision of law should presume that the intention of the authority making it was not to exceed its power and to enact validly as held by the Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dadabhoy's New Chirmiri Ponri Hill Colliery Co. Pvt. Ltd., (1972) 1 SCC 298 : (AIR 1972 SC 614). Where two constructions of rules are possible, one leading to its invalidity and another sustaining it as a valid piece of legislation, the Court must lean to that interpretation which upholds its validity. It has also been held in Tej Kumar Balakrishna Ruja , A.K. Menon, (1997) 9 SCC 123 : (AIR 1997 SC 442) that Courts must interpret the law as it reads and that while a purposive interpretation is permissible where two interpretations are possible, the purposive interpretation must be such as preserves the constitutionality of the provision. There cannot be any dispute nor doubt that the Motor Vehicles Act is a benevolent piece of legislation providing a speedy remedy to the victims of the accidents caused by the use of motor vehicles on public roads. When the State Government framed a rule which provides for execution of the award by the Court itself without recourse to recover the same as an arrear of land revenue, it cannot be said that the State Government exceeded its power. The rule made by the State Government conferring the power of Civil Court under Order 21, C.P.C. on the Claims Tribunal cannot be said to be invalid. It is only supplement and in addition to Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 53 - J M Shelat - Full Document
1