Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Price Waterhouse 1977 6 SCC 312; State of Gujarat v. Dilipbhai Nathjib~ai & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Price Waterhouse 1977 6 SCC 312; State of Gujarat v. Dilipbhai Nathjib~ai Patel 1998 (2) SCR 56 = 1998 (3) SCC 234; Union of India v. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama (1990) 1 SCC 277; D.R. Venkatachalam v. Dy. Transport D Commr. 1977 ( 2) SCR 392 = (1977) 2 SCC 273; and CST v. Popular Trading Co. 2000 (2) SCR 983 = (2000) 5 SCC 511 - referred to. ) Crawford v. Spooner (1846) 6 MOO PC1 ; Stock v. Frank Jones_(Tipton) Ltd 1978 (1) ALL ER 948; Lenigh Valley Coal E Co. v. Yensavage 218 FR 547; Artemiou v. Procopiou (1965) 3 ALL ER 539 All ER p. 544 I; Luke v. /RC (1963) AC 557 ; and All ER p.664 I - referred to.
3.2 A casus omissus ought not to be created by inter- F pretation, save in some case of strong necessity. Where, however, a casus omissus does really occur, either through the inadvertence of the legislature, or on the principle quod enim semel aut bis existit praetereunt legislatores, the rule is that the particular case, thus left unprovided for, must be ,G disposed of according to the law as it existed before such statute' - casus omissus et oblivioni datus dispositioni com- munis juris relinquitur; "a casus omissus", "can in no case be supplied by a court of law, for that would be to make laws." [para 20] [48-8-D] H Maulavi Hussein Haji Abraham Umarji v. State of Gujarat ;-· 't-· , \. r UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. MIS DHARAMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS & ORS. 17
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.