Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

It is a well established principle of law that there is no presumption that a casus omissus exits and the Court should avoid creating a casus omissus where there is none. The Court cannot read anything in statutory provisions which is plain and unambiguous. If two or more or more provisions of a Statute appear to carry different meanings, a construction which would give effect to all of them should be preferred.

The Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank Vs. Rajinder Lal Capoor ((2008) 5 SCC 257 has held as under :

63. It is a trite law that there is no presumption that a casus omissus exists and a court should avoid creating a casus omissus where there is none. It is a fundamental rule of interpretation that courts would not fill the gaps in statute, their functions being jus discre non facere i.e. to declare or decide the law. In reiteration of this well-settled exposition, this Court in Union of India v.

Dharamendra Textile Processors ((2008) 3 SCC 369) had ruled that it is a well-settled principle in law that a court cannot read anything in the statutory provision or a stipulated provision which is plain and unambiguous. It was held that a statute being in edict of the legislature, the language employed therein is determinative of the legislative intent. It recorded with approval the observation in Stock v. Frank Jones (Tipton) Ltd.((1978) 1 All ER 948 that it is contrary to all rules of construction to read words into an Act unless it is absolutely necessary to do so. The observation therein that rules of interpretation do not permit the courts to do so unless the provision as it stands is meaningless or doubtful and that the courts are not entitled to read words into an Act of Parliament unless clear reason for it is to be found within the four corners of the statute, was underlined. It was proclaimed that a casus omissus cannot be supplied by the court except in the case of clear necessity and that reason for, is found in the four corners of the statute itself but at the same time a casus omissus should not be readily inferred and for that purpose, all the parts of a statute or section must be construed together and every clause of a section should be construed with reference to the context and other clauses thereof so that the construction to be put on a particular provision makes a consistent enactment of the whole statute.

64. It is evident from the observation made by this Court in Konkan Railway Corpn. Ltd. that the Model Law was taken into account in drafting of the Arbitration Act, 1996. In para 9, this Court observed: (SCC p. 400) "9. ... That the Model Law was only taken into account in the drafting of the said Act is, therefore, patent. The Arbitration Act, 1996 and the Model Law are not identically drafted."

Thereafter, this Court has given further instances of provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1996, not being in conformity with the Model Law and concluded that "... The Model Law and judgments and literature thereon are, therefore, not a guide to the interpretation of the Act and, especially of Section 11 thereof". The aforesaid position, according to Mr Sorabjee has not been disagreed with by this Court in SBP & Co. We agree with the submission of Mr Sorabjee that the omission of the word "only" in Section 2(2) is not an instance of "casus omissus". It clearly indicates that the Model Law has not been bodily adopted by the Arbitration Act, 1996. But that cannot mean that the territorial principle has not been accepted. We would also agree with Mr Sorabjee that it is not the function of the court to supply the supposed omission, which can only be done by Parliament. In our opinion, legislative surgery is not a judicial option, nor a compulsion, whilst interpreting an Act or a provision in the Act. The observations made by this Court in Nalinakhya Bysack would tend to support the aforesaid views, wherein it has been observed as follows: (AIR p. 152, para 9) "9. ... It must always be borne in mind, as said by Lord Halsbury in Commissioners for Special Purposes of Income Tax v. Pemsel, that it is not competent to any court to proceed upon the assumption that the legislature has made a mistake. The court must proceed on the footing that the legislature intended what it has said. Even if there is some defect in the phraseology used by the legislature the Court cannot, as pointed out in Crawford v. Spooner, aid the legislature's defective phrasing of an Act or add and amend or, by construction, make up deficiencies which are left in the Act. Even where there is a casus omissus, it is, as said by Lord Russell of Killowen in Hansraj Gupta v. Official Liquidators of Dehra Dun-Mussoorie Electric Tramway Co. Ltd., for others than the courts to remedy the defect."

14. Two principles of construction -- one relating to casus omissus and the other in regard to reading the statute as a whole -- appear to be well settled. Under the first principle a casus omissus cannot be supplied by the court except in the case of clear necessity and when the reason for it is found in the four corners of the statute itself but at the same time a casus omissus should not be readily inferred and for that purpose all the parts of a statute or section must be construed together and every clause of a section should be construed with reference to the context and other clauses thereof so that the construction to be put on a particular provision makes a consistent enactment of the whole statute. This would be more so if literal construction of a particular clause leads to manifestly absurd or anomalous results which could not have been intended by the legislature. "An intention to produce an unreasonable result", said Danckwerts, L.J., in Artemiou v.