Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Narayan Thatte and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized the settled principle of interpretation as hereunder:
22. In our opinion, when the language of the statute is plain and clear then the literal rule of interpretation has to be applied and there is ordinarily No. scope for consideration of equity, public interest or seeking the intention of the legislature. It is only when the language of the statute is not clear or ambiguous or there is some conflict, etc. or the plain language leads to some absurdity that one can depart from the literal rule of interpretation. A perusal of the proviso to Section 6 shows that the language of the proviso is clear. Hence the literal rule of interpretation must be applied to it. When there is a conflict between the law and equity it is the law which must prevail. As stated in the latin maxim dura lex sed lex which means the law is “hard but it is the law.
Supreme Court in the case of D.L.F. Qutab Enclave Complex Educational Charitable Trust Vs. State of Haryana and Others, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court specifically held that a Court cannot go beyond the statute unless it is absolutely necessary. The Supreme Court specifically held in paragraph 41 of the said judgment as hereunder:
41. Expropriatory statute, as is well known, must be strictly construed.
