“There is no doubt that the term `shall` is interpreted as `may` in certain circumstances. The word “shall” in its ordinary sense is mandatory. unless such interpretation would entail absurd or embarrassing consequences. Why don`t lawyers write in the present tense? One explanation is that the lawyer believes that she is writing for the future and therefore should write about things as if they would happen in the future! But this is a false premise. The usual rule of interpretation is that a document speaks constantly. And if a document is read in the future (for example, if its conditions are implemented), the future will be present at that time! It is therefore more logical to pull in the present tense and get rid of unnecessary flows that confuse the meaning. If the buyer learns that the seller has rented the property.. The legal disclosure of the context in which the word can and should have meaning is indicated only by taking into account the purpose of the act with the corresponding quotations. Section 55 uses the word “may continue,” indicating an element of discretion whereby a joint bhumidhar may appeal to the Revenue Assistant Court for partition.

Usually, the word “may” means discretion and is not mandatory. In the present case, we see no reason why the word “may” in section 55 should be interpreted as “shall” or “shall”. The courts do not interpret the word “may” as “shall” unless such interpretation is necessary and necessary to eliminate absurd and unpleasant consequences, or is prescribed by Parliament`s intention derived from other parts of the law. In considering the third aspect, the courts consider the object, object, design and scope of the legislation. 1. “Has duty: In a broader sense, it is required that “the applicant sends a notice” “the notification be sent”. This is the compelling meaning that authors generally intend and that the courts usually maintain. Take a typical clause in an agreement that usually reads: “This agreement shall be governed by the laws of India.” If “shall” is understood as “has the duty to”, the sentence would read as follows: “This Agreement has the duty to be governed by the laws of India”. The intended meaning is not to impose an obligation, but to establish a fact. When I asked the question, why not just say, “This agreement is governed by Indian law”? I was told to just follow the rule – be king! “The use of `must` – a sliding semantic word – in a rule is not decisive.

» Expressing the future (“This agreement ends with the sale of the warehouse. “Mandamus, which is a discretionary exercise under Article 226 of the Constitution, is adopted, inter alia, to compel the exercise of public functions, which may be administrative, ministerial or statutory. The legal obligation may be directory or mandatory. Legal obligations, if they are to be mandatory, are indicated by the use of the words “shall” or “shall”. However, this is inconclusive, as “should” and “shall” have sometimes been interpreted as “may”. The nature of the obligation, whether mandatory, mandatory or compulsory, is determined by the system of the law in which the “obligation” is established. Even if “duty” is not clearly and specifically defined in the law, it can be implicitly implied as a correlation with a “right.” For all these reasons, “must” is a better choice, and change has already begun. For example, the new Federal Rules of Appeal Procedure use “shall” instead of “should.” Did you know that the words “may” and “should” can be used interchangeably? In law, the word “may” can sometimes mean “shall” or “must” to imply coercion, and sometimes the word “shall” may not mean compelling behavior, but may mean something completely optional – exactly how the word “may” is used. 5.

is entitled to “all expenses shall be reimbursed to the secretary”.