Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 41, Rule 22 read with Order 8, Rule 1—Appeal against decree—Default from filing appeal within one month—Right of cross-objector is not taken away in absolute terms in case of such default—There is no indefeasible divestment of right of cross-objector in case of a delay and his rights to file cross-objections are protected even at a belated stage by discretion vested in Courts—If a cross-objector fails to file cross-objections within the stipulated time, then his right to file cross-objections is taken away only in a limited sense.
it is not the duty of the court either to enlarge the scope of the legislation or the intention of the legislature when the language of the provision is plain and unambiguous. The court cannot rewrite, recast or reframe the legislation for the very good reason that it has no power to legislate. The power to legislate has not been conferred on the courts. The court cannot add words to a statute or read words into it which are not there.
In the passing, we may also refer to the observations of a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Smt. Kamala Devi vs. Seth Takhatmal & Anr.: (1964) 2 SCR 152, in […]
Interpretation Act R.S.C., 1985, c. I-21 An Act respecting the interpretation of statutes and regulations Short Title Short title 1 This Act may be cited as the Interpretation Act. Interpretation Definitions 2(1) In this Act, […]
Interpretation must depend on the text and the context. They are the basis of interpretation. One may well say if the text is the texture, context is what gives the colour. Neither can be ignored. Both are important. That interpretation is best which makes the textual interpretation match the contextual.
Where statutory provision is plain and unambiguous- Court shall not interpret the same in a different manner
The Court’s jurisdiction to interpret a statute can be invoked when the same is ambiguous. It is well known that in a given case the Court can iron out the fabric but it cannot change the texture of the fabric. It cannot enlarge the scope of legislation or intention when the language of the provision is plain and unambiguous. It cannot add or subtract words to a statute or read something into it which is not there. It cannot rewrite or recast legislation.
The resolving clause of all joint resolutions shall be in the following form: “Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled.” 1 U.S. […]
The enacting clause of all Acts of Congress shall be in the following form: “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress […]
An Act for the Interpretation of Acts of Parliament and for Shortening their Language Part 1—Preliminary 1 Short title This Act may be cited as the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. 1A Simplified […]
It is not only the common interest of mankind that crimes should not be committed, but that crimes of every kind should be less frequent, in proportion to the evil they produce to society. Therefore, the means made use of by the legislature to prevent crimes, should be more powerful, in proportion as they are destructive of the public safety and happiness, and as the inducements to commit them are stronger. Therefore there ought to be a fixed proportion between crimes and punishments.
When a statute is passed for the purpose of enabling something to be done, and prescribes the way in which it is to be done, it may be either an absolute enactment or a directory enactment. The difference being that an absolute enactment must be obeyed or fulfilled exactly, but it is sufficient if a directory enactment be obeyed or fulfilled substantially.