Thus, we have a scenario where, on the one hand, invocation of urgency provisions under Section 17 of the Act and dispensing with the right to file objection under Section 5A of the Act, is found to be illegal. On the other hand, we have a situation where because of delay in challenging these acquisitions by the land owners, developments have taken in these villages and in most of the cases, third party rights have been created. On a true construction, the proviso does not contemplate that if Parliament subsequently modifies that proposal, there must be a fresh bill or a fresh reference to the State Legislature.
He found no sign of decomposition in the body nor any characteristic smell of any recognisable poison. 3 lays down two conditions and under the second condition therein stated, what the President has to refer to the State Legislature for its opinion is the proposal contained in the Bill. The appellant, however, filed no answer before the arbitrators. The rule then directs that the courts must adopt that construction Read Much more [visit my web page] which shall suppress the mischief and advance the remedy.
We do not think that this interpretation is correct. Thereafter there were disputes and differences between the parties and eventually the respondent claimed default on or about June 1949 in terms of the contract. Wherever the introduction of an amendment is subject to a condition precedent, as in the case of financial bills, the Consti- tution has used the expression I A bill or amendments’, e. The respondent filed its claim before the arbitrators on July 23, 1949.
Paramnidhi Sadhukhan [1957] INSC 65; AIR 1957 SC 907]. He also found the scratches on the neck to be postmortem. On or about July 14, 1949, the respondent referred the matter to the arbitration of the London Jute Association, which appointed two of its member as arbitrators. State of Bihar [AIR 1955 SC 661] by S. What the appellant did in reply was to file an application under s. Jhala submitted his postmortem report stating that in his opinion death could have occurred on account of diabetic coma.
The rule was explained in the Bengal Immunity Co. (2) If the court holds that a trust in the matter of Shri Vyankatesh Balaji Deity’ and ‘Shri Vyankatesh Balaji Sansthan’ exists, then it may be declared that the said trust is not a public one, that the same has not come into existence for the religious and charitable purposes and that the Religious and Charitable Trusts Act (sic. Ryan 1985 2 ALL ER 355], enables consideration of four matters in construing an Act: (i) What was the law before the making of the Act, (ii) What was the mischief or defect for which the law did not provide, (iii) What is the remedy that the Act has provided, and (iv) What is the reason of the remedy.
It seems that the respondent received a cable on August 12, 1948, from the appellant stating that the contract stood cancelled long ago. 10% of the land acquired of each of the land owners against the eligibility and to the policy to the extent of 5% and 6% of Noida and Greater Noida land respectively. DAS, CJI as follows: It is a sound rule of construction of a statute firmly established in England as far back as 1584 when Heydons case (supra) was decided that for the sure and true interpretation of all Statutes in general (be they penal or beneficial, restrictive or enlarging of the common law) four things are to be discerned and considered: 14 of 1920) is not applicable to the same.
This order shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case. On July 27, 1949, the arbitrators gave notice to the appellant to file its answer by August 19, 1949. We are, thus, of the view that the High Court considered the ground realities of the matter and arrived at a learn more.. (visit the site) practical and workable solution by adequately compensating the land owners in the form of compensation as well as allotment of developed Abadi land at a higher rate i. Jhala sent the viscera to the Government Chemical Examiner who sent Related Home Page – visit my web page, the report of his examination on December 19, 1956, wherein he stated that he was unable to detect any poison in the viscera.
We do not know what happened thereafter till we come to August 1948. Held, that the proviso to Art. The rule which is also known as ˜purposive construction or ˜mischief rule [Anderton v. In the meantime, after the postmortem examination, the body of Laxmibai had been made over to the Hindu Relief Society for cremation on November 24 and the cremation had been duly carried out. Faced with this situation, the High Court going by the spirit behind the judgment of this Court in Bondu Ramaswamy and Others (supra) came out with the solution which is equitable to both sides.
The respondent by its letter dated August 12, 1948, refused to %accept this position. The second line of argument presented on behalf of the appellant is that the word I Bill’ in the proviso must be interpreted to include an amendment of any of the clauses of the Bill, at least any substantial amendment thereof, and any proposal contained in such amendment must be referred to the State Legislature for expression of its views.