Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.25 seconds)

S. Sundaram Pillai, Etc vs V.R. Pattabiraman Etc on 24 January, 1985

In S. Sundaram Pillai & others vs. V.R. Pattabiraman [17 (1985) 1 SCC 591, it was observed: (SCC pp.606-07, paras 27-30) "27. The next question that arises for consideration is as to what is the scope of a proviso and what is the ambit of an Explanation either to a proviso or to any other statutory provision. We shall first take up the question of the nature, scope and extent of a proviso. The well established rule of interpretation of a proviso is that a proviso may have three separate functions. Normally, a proviso is meant to be an exception to something within the main enactment or to qualify something enacted therein which but for the proviso would be within the purview of the enactment. In other words, a proviso cannot be torn apart from the main enactment nor can it be used to nullify or set at naught the real object of the main enactment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 68 - Cited by 588 - S M Ali - Full Document
1