held that the rule has no application in the present instance because the expressions preceding

the words or otherwise are not species of the same nature, and therefore, do not belong to any
identifiable genus.
In Jagdish Chandra Gupta v. Kajaria Traders (India) Ltd1, interpretation of the words ‘or
other proceeding’ in the phrase ‘a claim of set off or other proceeding to enforce a right
arising from contract’ appearing in Section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932 was discussed.
The Supreme Court did not apply the principle of Ejusdem Generis because the preceding
words /a claim of set off did not constitute a genus.

Difference between Ejusdem generis and Noscitur a sociis

Ejusdem generis

The meaning of ‘Ejusdem Generis’ is ‘of the same kind’. It is generally used in courts for
deciding or classification of entities or bodies that come under a specific definition. The
interpretation of statutes is the main applications of the ejusdem generic rule. It is generally
used when ambiguity or confusion on the statutes arises. It has a major role in defining the
state which is mentioned in the article 12 of the Indian Constitution. In the article 12 of the
Indian Constitution, it is mentioned about the state legislature, parliament, and central
government. A state comes under this term and other authorities in the article 12, there will
be performing the functions similar to the functions of the legislature and government or
sovereign functions.

Noscitur a sociis

The principle of Noscitur a Sociis is a rule of construction. It is used by the court to interpret
legislation. This means that the meaning of an unclear word or phrase must be determined by
the words that surround it. In other terms, the meaning of a word must be judged by the
company that it keeps. The questionable meaning of a doubtful word will be derived from its
association with other words. It is used wherever a statutory provision constitutes a word or
phrase that is capable of bearing more than one meaning.

hat is Brain Mapping Test

The Brain Mapping Test is also known as P-300 test. In this test of Brain Mapping the suspect is
first interviewed and interrogated find out whether he is concealing any information. The
1
AIR 1964 SC 1882
activation of brain for the associated memory is carried out by presenting list of words to the
subjects. There The recording of this test is done by acquiring the response through 32 channel
EEG-ERP Neuro Scan cording system. It is carried out by asking the suspect to sit down and
close his eyes. The 32 channel electrodes are placed over the scalp directly while conducting
this test twice by presenting each word in three parts randomly. the suspect is instructed to relax
and listen to the words presented in the auditory mode. This test does not expect any oral
response from the witness. The conclusion drawn by the experts after the conduct of the test to
indicate the possession of the knowledge about the relevant subject which is helpful in the
investigation and collecting of evidence. After the administration of the test, what comes out is
that, the person undergoing the test has the knowledge of the crime about which he was
questioned (brain mapping). In the said test there is no way to find out what the lie is or what is
the information stored in the brain of the person concerned. It can be called the information
received of taken out from the witness.

s to the subjects. any responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or authenticity of any
information contained on this site. This site and all information and materials contained herein, is
provided to you “as is” without warranty of any kind.”582Toyota further states, “Toyota shall not be
responsible for any harm that you or any person may suffer as a result of a breach of confidentiality
in respect to your use of this site or any information you transmitted to this site.”583 Toyota’s harsh
legalistic tone illustrates the tension between a privacy policy crafted as a document meant to create
trust in users and a legal document meant to protect the company against potential liability. The use
of more legalistic language is perhaps not surprising, given that privacy policies are starting to play a
role in lawsuits584. If privacy related lawsuits become more prevalent, privacy policies may become
even more legalistic. In the past few years, most websites have begun to address privacy