Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.26 seconds)Sultana Begum vs Prem Chand Jain on 10 December, 1996
335). Such a construction has the merit
of avoiding any inconsistency or
repugnancy either within a section or
between two different sections or
provisions of the same statute. It is the
duty of the court to avoid a head-on
clash between two sections of the same
Act. (See Sultana Begum v. Prem
Chand Jain (1997) 1 SCC 373).
The J. K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills ... vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors on 12 December, 1960
In support of the
above contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner
has placed reliance on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme
Court rendered in The J.K.Cotton Spinning &
Weaving vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.,
AIR 1961 SC 1170; M.V.Javali vs. Mahajan
Borewell & Co. & Ors., (1997) 8 SCC 72 as well
as the decision of this Court in Hanuman Prasad
Choudhary vs. R.S.E.B., Jaipur reported in RLR
1985 842.
M.V. Javali vs Mahajan Borewell & Co. & Ors on 26 September, 1997
In support of the
above contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner
has placed reliance on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme
Court rendered in The J.K.Cotton Spinning &
Weaving vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.,
AIR 1961 SC 1170; M.V.Javali vs. Mahajan
Borewell & Co. & Ors., (1997) 8 SCC 72 as well
as the decision of this Court in Hanuman Prasad
Choudhary vs. R.S.E.B., Jaipur reported in RLR
1985 842.
Meet Singh vs State Of Punjab on 27 February, 1980
Learned counsel for the petitioner has
further argued that clause 10.10 of the Policy of
2010 is a special provision, whereas clause 10.2 is a
general provision. It is argued that the provision of
clause 10.10 is special as it deals with a particular
purpose, whereby the area reserved for an existing
biomass base power plant has been kept intact,
whereas clause 10.2 is general in nature, which
deals with the whole class, rather than to a part. He
has placed reliance on definition of word 'General'
given in law dictionary Advanced Law Lexicon. He
has also placed reliance on decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court rendered in Meet Singh vs. State
20
of Punjab, (1980) 3 SCC 291 as well as of
decision of Court of Appeal rendered in Eastbourne
Corporation vs. Fortes Ice Cream Parlour
(1955) Ltd. reported in [1959] 2 All.E.R. Mr
Singhvi has further argued that as the rule of
construction is well settled that when there are in an
enactment two provisions, one is general and
another is specific, then the general has to yield to
the specific.
State Of Maharashtra Etc. Etc vs Mrs. Kamal Sukumar Durgule And Ors. Etc on 28 November, 1984
In support of above contentions, learned
counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on
decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in
State of Maharashtra vs. Mrs Kamal Sukumar
Durgule & Ors. reported in 1985 SC 119 and
Cellular Operators Association of India & Ors.
vs. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India &
Ors., reported in 2016 SCC Online SC 486.
Cellular Operators Association Of ... vs Telecom Regulatory Authority Of India ... on 11 May, 2016
In support of above contentions, learned
counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on
decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in
State of Maharashtra vs. Mrs Kamal Sukumar
Durgule & Ors. reported in 1985 SC 119 and
Cellular Operators Association of India & Ors.
vs. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India &
Ors., reported in 2016 SCC Online SC 486.
State Of Rajasthan vs Gopi Kishan Sen on 7 April, 1992
It is further argued that if the contention
of the petitioner-company to the effect that as per
the clause 10.10 of the Policy of 2004, no power
plant can be established in reserved area of an
existing power plant, is accepted, then the same will
lead to the absurdity because then a biomass base
power plant of less than 5 MW capacity can be
established in a reserved area of a power plant
established under the Policy of 2010 but cannot be
established in a power plant established in the
earlier policies i.e. Polices of 1999 and 2004. It is
submitted that no distinction can be made between
the existing or the new power plants under the
25
Policy of 2010 and such classification is not
permissible under the law. In support of the above
contentions, learned counsel for the respondent
Nos.3 and 4 has placed reliance on decisions of
Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in The State of
Gujarat & another etc. vs. Patel Ramjibhai
Danabhai and others etc., reported in AIR 1979
SC 1098; State of Rajasthan vs. Gopi Kishan
Sen, AIR 1992 SC 1754 and M/s British Airways
Plc vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2002 SC 391.
M/S.British Airways Plc vs Union Of India & Ors on 6 November, 2001
It is further argued that if the contention
of the petitioner-company to the effect that as per
the clause 10.10 of the Policy of 2004, no power
plant can be established in reserved area of an
existing power plant, is accepted, then the same will
lead to the absurdity because then a biomass base
power plant of less than 5 MW capacity can be
established in a reserved area of a power plant
established under the Policy of 2010 but cannot be
established in a power plant established in the
earlier policies i.e. Polices of 1999 and 2004. It is
submitted that no distinction can be made between
the existing or the new power plants under the
25
Policy of 2010 and such classification is not
permissible under the law. In support of the above
contentions, learned counsel for the respondent
Nos.3 and 4 has placed reliance on decisions of
Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in The State of
Gujarat & another etc. vs. Patel Ramjibhai
Danabhai and others etc., reported in AIR 1979
SC 1098; State of Rajasthan vs. Gopi Kishan
Sen, AIR 1992 SC 1754 and M/s British Airways
Plc vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2002 SC 391.
Utkal Contractors & Joinery Private ... vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 7 May, 1987
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Utkal
Contractors & Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. State of
38
Orissa & Ors., reported in (1987) 3 SCC 279 has
held as under: