"विकिपीडिया:(छाया)चित्र, माध्यम संचिकांचे प्रताधिकार, उचित वापर अपवाद, परीघ आणि जोखीम" च्या विविध आवृत्यांमधील फरक

खूणपताका: अमराठी मजकूर? कृ. मराठी वापरा !!
:: * संदर्भ [http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1351834/ Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd vs Proprietors Of Indian Express ... on 23 September, 1988 Equivalent citations: 1989 AIR 190, 1988 SCR Supl. (3) 212]
* मार्च २००३च्या J.P. Bansal vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 12 March, 2003 केस आपण वाचली आहे का ?
:२०११ मध्ये निकाल दिलेली [http://indiankanoon.org/doc/576454/ Super Cassettes Industries ... vs Mr Chintamani Rao & Ors] ह्या कॉपीराइट विषयक केसमध्ये J.P. Bansal vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr चे परिच्चेद उधृत केले आहेत :
:::"14. Where, however, the words were clear, there is no obscurity, there is no ambiguity and the intention of the legislature is clearly conveyed, there is no scope for the court to innovate or take upon itself the task of amending or altering the statutory provisions. In that situation the Judges should not proclaim that they are playing the role of a law-maker merely for an exhibition of judicial valour. They have to remember that there is a line, though thin, which separates adjudication from legislation. That line should not be crossed or erased. This can be vouchsafed by "an alert recognition of the necessity not to cross it and instinctive, as well as trained reluctance to do so". (See: Frankfurter, Some Reflections on the Reading of Statutes in "Essays on Jurisprudence", Columbia Law Review, P.51.)"
:::"16. Where, therefore, the "language" is clear, the intention of the legislature is to be gathered from the language used. What is to be borne in mind is as to what has been said in the statute as also what has not been said. A construction which requires, for its support, addition or substitution of words or which results in rejection of words, has to be avoided, unless it is covered by the rule of exception, including that of necessity, which is not the case here. (See: Gwalior Rayons Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd. v. Custodian of Vested Forests (AIR 1990 SC 1747 at p. 1752); Shyam Kishori Devi v. Patna Municipal Corpn. (AIR 1966 SC 1678 at p. 1682); A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak (1984) 2 SCC 500, at pp. 518, 519)]. Indeed, the Court cannot reframe the legislation as it has no power to legislate. [See State of Kerala v. Mathai Verghese (1986) 4 SCC 746, at p. 749); Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal (AIR 1992 SC 96 at p.101)"
: सर्वोच्च न्यायालयाने [[भारतीय राज्यघटनेतील अनुच्छेद २१]] चा माहितीच्या अधिकारासंदर्भात विस्तार केला आहे पण असा विस्तार करणारे सर्वोच्च न्यायालय, कायद्याचे अर्थ लावताना नवीन कायदा बनवण्याची मुलत: संसदेची असलेली जबाबदारी न अंगिकारण्या बद्दल दक्ष आहे असे आपणास वाटते का ?