The use of the word indicates an intention to enlarge the means of the word used in the statute, whereas the use of the word “denotes” in the interpretation clause shows that the expression denoted therein are covered within the ambit pf that particular word. And the expression “deemed to be” in the interpretation clause creates a fiction.
Ardeshir v. Bombay State, 1962
Factories act, 1948, Sec 6 which made the requirement of the licence mandatory for the factory owner. Mr. A said he is not included in the definition of the fac because there was no particular infrastructure and it was just a temporary structure. Court interpreted the def clause which defined factory. Sec 2(m) included the word ‘means’ and also included Precincts . It will include the interpretation of “STATE” and all the cases in that RD SHETTY CASE,
Mahalakshmi Oil Mills v. State of Andra Pradesh.
PROVISO Sundaram v. V.R. Pattabhiraman, 1984. The SC observed that a proviso may have 3 separate functions normally it is meant to be an exception to something within the main enactment or to qualify something enacted therein which but for the proviso would be within the preview of the enactment. A proviso can’t be separated from the main enactment nor can it be used to nullify the real object of the statute. While interpreting the proviso care must be taken that it is used to remove special cases from the general enactment and provide from them separately. To sum proviso may serve 4 diff purposes 1. Creating exception to certain provision from the main enactment 2. It may entirely change the concept of the intention of the enactment by insisting on certain mandatory conditions to be fulfilled in order to make the enactment workable. 3. It may be so embedded in the act itself that it acquires the colour of the substantive enactment itself. 4. It may be used merely to act as an optional addition to the enactment with the sole object of explaining the real intention of the statutory provision.