Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 77 (0.76 seconds)Section 45K in The Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 [Entire Act]
Section 45J in The Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 [Entire Act]
The Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934
Peerless General Finance And ... vs Reserve Bank Of India on 30 January, 1992
Thus, the question as to whether the petitioner-company is a financial institution cannot be said to have been concluded by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. v. Reserve Bank of India , since that question was never in issue in the said case and never arose therein and no arguments were advanced on the said question.
Reserve Bank Of India vs Peerless General Finance & Investment ... on 22 January, 1987
Since all the, financial institutions are non-banking institutions, but all non-banking institutions are not financial institutions, non-banking institution is larger in scope and comprises financial institutions. If the Reserve Bank of India's argu-ments have to be accepted, it logically follows that the Legislature has indulged in surplusage or superfluity in enacting Chapter III-B of the Reserve Bank of India Act. The construction sought to be placed by the Reserve Bank of India on Section 45K(3) of the Reserve Bank of India Act would also render the last part of the said sub-section, namely, the part beginning with the words "including" superfluous. This is contrary to the rules of construction as laid down by the Supreme Court of India.
Section 45I in The Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 [Entire Act]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Abdul Jabar Butt vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir(With Connected ... on 13 November, 1956
In the case of Abdul Jabar Butt v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, , the Supreme Court held'nhat it is a fundamental rule of construction that a proviso must be considered with relation to the principal matter to which it stands as a proviso. Therefore, the proviso to Section 8(1) has to be construed harmoniously with the provisions of subsection (1) to which it is a proviso.
M/S. Ram Narain Sons Ltd vs Asst. Commissioner Of Sales Tax And ... on 20 September, 1955
In this connection the judgment and decision in the case of Ram Narain Sons Ltd. v. Asst. CST, may also be taken note of. In the aforesaid decision it has been held that it is a cardinal rule of interpretation that a proviso to a particular provision of a statute only embraces the field which is covered by the main provision. It carves out an exception to the main provision to which it has been enacted as a proviso and to no other.