When language of the provision is plain and unambiguous, the question of supplying ‘casus omissus’ does not arise

Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Anr. v. Shardindu held that when language of the provision is plain and unambiguous, the question of supplying ‘casus omissus’ does not arise and the Court can interpret a law but cannot legislate. Therefore, recent trend for supplying gape in legislation is concerned, the Court will be loath in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Continue reading “When language of the provision is plain and unambiguous, the question of supplying ‘casus omissus’ does not arise”

The duty to act Judicially may be inferred from the provisions of the statute

Where  the provisions of the Act are silent, the duty to act Judicially may be inferred from the provisions of the statute or may be gathered from the cumulative effect of the nature of the rights affected, the manner of the disposal provided the objective criterion to be adopted the phraseology used and other indicia afforded by the statute.

It is clear therefore that S. 56 (2) deals with cases where there is a doubt in the mind of the collector in regard to an instrument which comes up before him under the above provisions of the Act as to the construction of the instrument and the provisions of the Act applicable to it. Such doubt itself shows that the point raised for the Collector’s decision is a difficult point of law and from the very nature of the duty to be performed in such circumstances it appears clear that the Chief Controlling Revenue-authority has to decide the matter Judicially and would thus be a quasi-Judicial tribunal. Continue reading “The duty to act Judicially may be inferred from the provisions of the statute”

In construing penal statutes and taxation statutes, the Court has to apply strict rule of interpretation.

The penal statute which tends to deprive a person of right to life and liberty has to be given strict interpretation or else many innocent might become victims of discretionary decision making. Insofar as taxation statutes are concerned, [ Assistant Commissioner, Gadag Sub­Division, Gadag v. Mathapathi Basavannewwa, 1995 (6) SCC 355]. Continue reading “In construing penal statutes and taxation statutes, the Court has to apply strict rule of interpretation.”

How to interpret a Statute [ intention of the Legislature ]

It is well accepted that a statute must be construed according to the intention of the Legislature and the Courts should act upon the true intention of the legislation while applying law and while interpreting law. If a statutory provision is open to more than one meaning, the Court has to choose the interpretation which represents the intention of the Legislature. In this connection, the following observations made by this Court in District Mining Officer vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co., (2001) 7 SCC 358, may be noticed: Continue reading “How to interpret a Statute [ intention of the Legislature ]”

Explanation of the principle of necessity

A dying declaration not being a deposition in Court, neither made on oath nor in the presence of the accused and therefore not tested by cross-examination is yet admissible in evidence as an exception to the general rule against the admissibility of hearsay. The admissibility is founded on the principle of necessity. The weak points of a  serve to put the Court on its guard … Continue reading Explanation of the principle of necessity

Where a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner, and in no other manner

It is well settled that where a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner, and in no other manner, vide Chandra Kishore Jha vs. Mahavir Prasad, AIR 1999 SC 3558 (para 12), Dhananjaya Reddy vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2001 SC 1512 (para 22), etc. Section 86(1)(f) provides a special manner … Continue reading Where a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner, and in no other manner

Mimansa Principles of Interpretation

In  Gujarat Urja Vikash Nigam Ltd. Versus Essar Power Ltd [AIR 2008 SC 1921 : (2008) 4 SCR 822 : (2008) 4 SCC 755 : JT 2008 (3) SC 336 : (2008) 3 SCALE 469]  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA HELD : Today many of our educated people are largely unaware about the great intellectual achievements of our ancestors and the intellectual treasury they have bequeathed us. The Mimansa … Continue reading Mimansa Principles of Interpretation

Meaning of “Notwithstanding anything contained in the Act.”

 What is meant by use of the expression “Notwithstanding anything contained in the Act” as contradiction to the phrase “Subject to the provisions of this Act” reliance has been placed on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao Vs. Ashalata S. Guram AIR 1987 SC 117 = (1986) 4 SCC Continue reading “Meaning of “Notwithstanding anything contained in the Act.””