AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Report No. 60

8.24. Merit of the provision.-

The merit of these two provisions is obvious. Of course, the resultant brevity is purchased at a price, because, as is shown by the fairly large number of reported cases on the section, it is often not easy to decide whether, in a particular statutory provision, the context should be taken as indicating a contrary intention. Some of these cases have even gone to the Supreme Court.1

And, there have been recent decisions2 of the High Courts also. But this cannot be avoided. For this reason, no substantial change is suggested in the section.

1. (a) Regional Settlement Commissioner, Jaipur v. Sunder Das Bhasin, AIR 1963 SC 181: (1963) 2 SCR 534.

(b) Management of Indian Cable Co. Ltd., Calcutta v. Its workmen, (1962) Supp 3 SCR 589 (601, 620).

(c) Dhandnia Kedia & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, AIR 1959 SC 219 (222).

(d) Newspapers Ltd. v. State Industrial Tribunal, AIR 1957 SC 532 (536).

2. E.g. (a) AIR 1964 Punj 87 (89); (b) AIR 1970 Punj 81 (84).



General Clauses Act, 1897 Back




Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys