Professional Documents
Culture Documents
In The Supreme Court of India Civil Appellate Jurisdiction: Judgment L. Nageswara Rao, J
In The Supreme Court of India Civil Appellate Jurisdiction: Judgment L. Nageswara Rao, J
In The Supreme Court of India Civil Appellate Jurisdiction: Judgment L. Nageswara Rao, J
IN
Reportable
JUDGMENT
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
Digitally signed by
CHARANJEET KAUR
The Appellant filed appeals against the said judgment
Date: 2018.08.24
16:28:07 IST
Reason:
1
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
of the Act. The main ground in the petition was that the
2
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
3
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
4
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
5
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
in rem.1
6
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
7
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
8
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
9
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
10
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
11
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
interpretation.
12
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
this Court in Shiv Prasad (supra) and held that the said
13
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
withdrawal.
14
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
declared as void.
15
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
present case.
Interpretation of Section 15
8 Cross Statutory Interpretation, Ed. Dr. John Bell & Sir George Ingale, Second
Edition (1987)
16
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
follows:
“ 33. We may also emphasise that the statutory
interpretation of a provision is never static but is
always dynamic. Though the literal rule of
interpretation, till some time ago, was treated as the
“golden rule”, it is now the doctrine of purposive
interpretation which is predominant, particularly in
those cases where literal interpretation may not
serve the purpose or may lead to absurdity. If it
brings about an end which is at variance with the
purpose of statute, that cannot be countenanced.
Not only legal process thinkers such as Hart and
Sacks rejected intentionalism as a grand strategy for
statutory interpretation, and in its place they offered
purposivism, this principle is now widely applied by
9 Parayankandiyal Eravath Kanapravan Kalliani Amma v. K. Devi (1996) 4 SCC 76, para 68
10 Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, (2011) 11 SCC 1, para 40
11 (2016) 3 SCC 619
17
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
12 [1897] AC 22 at 38
13 [1975] AC 591, p. 613
14 (1965) 1 SCR 220 at 225 F - G
18
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
19
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
appeal.
20
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
……….……..J.
[S.A. BOBDE]
………..………………..J.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
NEW DELHI,
August 24th 2018
21
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
REPORTABLE
Versus
JUDGMENT
S.A.BOBDE, J.
been settled by the decision in Lila Gupta v. Laxmi Narain and Ors.1.
clear negative terms – “it shall not be lawful” etc., this Court held that
are no negative words but on the other hand positive words like “it
1
(1978) 3 SCC 258
1
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
and 10 of Lila Gupta case. The Court must have regard to the
opened with the prohibition that “it shall not be lawful.” This Court
the proviso would be a nullity or void and came to the conclusion that
an incapacity to marry and yet the person marries while under that
thus appear that the law is already settled by this Court that a
decision in Lila Gupta case thus covers the present case on law.
.....................………J.
[ S.A. BOBDE ]
NEW DELHI,
AUGUST 24, 2018