| Topics |
Headnote |
Judgement |
| JURISPRUDENCE |
|
PDF |
| JURISPRUDENCE |
Jurisprudence —Intention of Legislation vis-à-vis Interpretation by Court— Principle of law — a court cannot read anything in the statutory provision — or a stipulated provision which is plain and unambiguous— A statute being in edict of the Legislature— the language employed therein is determinative of the legislative intent. (Para 63) |
PDF |
| JURISPRUDENCE |
Jurisprudence — Construction & interpretation of Statute— Rules of — it is contrary to all rules of construction to read words into an Act unless it is absolutely necessary to do so — The rules of interpretation do not permit the courts to do so unless the provision as it stands meaningless or doubtful — 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 — Stock v. Frank Johns (Tipton) Limited —referred. (Para 63) |
PDF |
| JURISPRUDENCE |
Jurisprudence —Intention of Legislation vis-à-vis Interpretation by Court—when the legislative intention is absolutely clear and simple — & any omission inter alia either in conferment of power — or in the ambit — or expanse of any expression used is deliberate — & not accidental, filling up of the lacuna as perceived by a judicial interpretative process is impermissible — Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board vs. Indraprastha Gas Limited and Others —referred. (Para 64) |
PDF |