Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

These are the relevant statutory provisions. On these, the question to be considered is: what is the effect of the mention of the definition of "Cotton fabrics" given in the 1944 Act in the Schedule to the 1963 Act? Does it attract only the said definition as on 1.4.1963 or also the subsequent amendments thereto? To appreciate the contentions urged, it is necessary to make a brief reference to the principles of interpretation of an enactment which, for purposes of convenience, refers to or incorporates a provision of another. These have been discussed in various earlier decisions viz. Secy. of State v. Hindustan Cooperative Insurance Society Ltd. , Collector of Customs v. Nathella Sampathu Chetty , Ram Sarup v. State , Ram Kirpal v. State , New Central Jute Mills Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Collector , State of Madhya Pradesh v. Narasimhan , Bajya v. Smt. Gopikabai , Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. Union of India and Western Coal Fields v. Special Area Development Authority It is unnecessary to make a detailed reference to these decisions. It is sufficient to say that they draw a distinction between referential legislation which merely contains a 'reference to, citation of, a provision of another statute and a piece of referential legislation which incorporates within itself a provision of another statute. In the former case, the provision of the second statute, along with all its amendments and variations from time to time, should be read into the first statute. In the latter cae, the position will be as outlined in Narasimhan where, after referring to Secretary of State v. Hindustan Cooperative Insurance Society Ltd. , this Court summed up the position thus (at P. 1841 of AIR):