Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.25 seconds)

R. M. D. Chamarbaugwalla vs The Union Of India(With Connected ... on 9 April, 1957

.........Now, when a question arises as to the interpretation to be put on an enactment, what the court has to do is to ascertain ''the intent of them that make it and that must of course be gathered from the words actually used in the statute. That, however does not mean that the decision should rest on a literal interpretation of the words used in disregard of all other materials. The literal construction then', says Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, 10th Edn. Page 19 'has, in general, but prima facie preference. To arrive at the real meaning it is always necessary to get an exact conception of the aim, scope and object of the whole Act; to consider, according to Lord Coke: (1) What was the law before the Act was passed; (2) What was the mischief or defect for which the law had not provided: (3) What remedy Parliament has appointed: and (4) The reason of the remedy' The Supreme Court applied these principles in the above case. It may also be stated that very often, a word may receive some qualification or some explanation by the context in which it is used and it is for this reason that the rule of interpreting the words of a section or an enactment with reference to the context has been accepted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 336 - Full Document
1   2 Next