Mandvi Co-op. Bank Ltd V. Nimesh B. Thakore, (2010) 3 SCC – In the field of statute law the Judge must be obedient to the will of Parliament as expressed in its enactments. In this field Parliament makes, and unmakes, the law: the Judge’s duty is to interpret and to apply the law, not to change it to meet the Judge’s idea of what justice requires. Interpretation does, of course, imply in the interpreter a power of choice where differing constructions are possible. But our law requires the Judge to choose the construction which in his judgment best meets the legislative purpose of the enactment. If the result be unjust but inevitable, the Judge may say so and invite Parliament to reconsider its provision. But he must not deny the statute

It is quite clear and indeed not disputed that in some contexts, “any one” means “one only it matters not which one” the phrase “any of the directors” is therefore quite capable of meaning “only one of the directors, it does not matter which one”. Is the phrase however capable of no other meaning? If it is not, the courts cannot look further, and must interpret these words in that meaning only, irrespective of what the intention of the legislature might be believed to have been. If however the phrase is capable of another meaning, as suggested, viz., “every one of the directors” it will be necessary to decide which of the two meanings was intended by the legislature.

The rule is that a statute should not be given a construction that would impair existing rights as regards person or property unless the language in which it is couched requires such a construction … The presumption that vested rights are not affected unless the intention of the legislature is clear applies whether the legislation is retrospective or prospective in operation.

In relation to statutory construction, our position might be contrasted with that of the State and Territory Supreme Courts. The difference is only one of degree for, in modern times, State Parliaments have displayed a like penchant to their Federal counterpart. But the position remains, albeit much eroded by the loss of subjects of jurisdiction to Commonwealth courts and tribunals and by statutory intrusions, that these are courts of general jurisdiction.

Effect of amendment Unless otherwise specifically provided, any amendment, modification, or revocation of any provision in or appendix or chapter or of any order, regulation, ruling, instruction, or license issued by authority does not affect any act done or omitted, or any civil or criminal proceeding commenced or pending, prior to such amendment, modification, or revocation. All penalties, forfeitures, and […]

Arun Kumar Aggarwal Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and Others -Scope of the expression ‘direction’ issued by the Court AIR 2011 SC 3056 : JT 2011 (10) SC 167 : (2011) 9 SCALE 608 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Arun Kumar Aggarwal Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (Before : G.S. Singhvi and H.L. Dattu, JJ.) Criminal Appeal Nos. 1706-1708 of 2011 […]

Recent Updates