Gitarattan International Business School

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES
LLB 406
BBALLB SEM 8
L 37
Date of releasing assignment: 26/03/2020
Date of submission of assignment: 27/03/2020 by 8 am

Rules of Interpretation

Noscitur a sociis
It is one of the principles applied by court while interpreting a statute. The expression ‘Noscitur’
means to know and ‘sociis’ means association. Therefore, the whole expression ‘Noscitur a sociis’
means to know from the association. When two or mare words are grouped together, and
ordinarily have a similar meaning, but are not equally comprehensive, the general word will be
limited and qualified by the special words. They take their color from each other and the more
general is restricted to a sense analogous to the less general.

In Oswal Agro Mills Ltd vs Collector of Central Excise AIR 1993 SC 2288 it was observed

“When words are used in such juxtaposition (immediately following others), the earlier words have
demonstrative or limiting effect. Later expression should be deemed to take its color from earlier
expression in the same statute”

Ejusdem generis vs Noscitur a sociis:

Some judges do not distinguish between the ejusdem generis doctrine and the rule of construction
noscitur a sociis. The maxim ejusdem generis is applied where general term follows the expression
of narrower connotation preceding it. On the other hand, where two or more words which are
susceptible of analogous meaning are complied together, noscitur a sociis, they are understood to
be used in their cognate sense. At one time no doubt the rule of ejusdem generis was somewhat
liberally applied so as to construe general words as being cut down by the use of antecedent
specific words. Thus, one of the judges in Smelting Co of Australia Vs Commissioner of Inland
Revenue (1897)1 QB 175, P 181 observed

“ I think the proper way of construing those words is to apply to them what is known as the
ejusdem generis doctrine, or as it is some times expressed, the doctrine noscitur a sociis, which is
that where general words immediately follow or are closely associated with specific words, their
meaning must be limited by reference to the preceding words.”

In pointing out the difference between the maxims, in Muddeerswere Mining Industries vs
Commissioner of Income-tax (1994) 72 Taxman 186 (Kant) Justice Gajendra Gadkar has observed

“Associated words take their meaning from another under the doctrine of noscitur a sociis, the
philosophy of which is that the meaning of a doubtful word may be ascertained by reference to the
meaning of words associated with it; such doctrine is broader than the maxim ejusdem generis. In
fact the latter maxim is only in illustration or specific application of the broader maxim noscitur a
sociis.”

Cases where Supreme Court of India applied the rule:

In M.K. Ranganathan Vs Government of Madras, AIR 1955 SC 604, interpretation of Section 232
of the old Companies Act, 1913 was involved. The provision said that ‘where any company is being
wound up by or subject to the supervision of the court, any attachment, distress or execution put
into force without leave of the court against the estate of effects or any sale held without leave of
the court of any of the properties of the company after the commencement of the winding up shall
be void’ the Supreme Court interpreted the words ‘any attachment, distress, or execution put into
force’ associated with these and held that the same had to be through the intervention of the court
and not otherwise like sale outside the winding up by a secured creditor.

In Mangoo Sing vs Election Tribunal AIR 1957 SC 871 it was observed

“even though the expression demand may generally mean called for or asked for, this meaning is
wholly out of place if we look to other words in whose company the word demand has been used. It
must , therefore, be interpreted as amount of arrears or dues.”

In Alamgir vs State of Bihar AIR 1959 SC 436 it was observed

“Section 498 protects the right of a husband who has been deprived of the company of his wife and
in the light of this object also expression detains must mean keeping a woman without the
permission of her husband. The woman’s consent under this provision is therefore, meaningless”
In K. Janardhan Pillai vs Union of India AIR 1981 SC 1845 the Supreme court held

“Raw cashewnut is a foodstuff falling under Section 2(a) (v) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955
and hence cannot be declared as essential article under Section 2(a) of the Kerala Essential Article
control (Temporary Powers) Act, 1962. It was further stated that associated words take their
meaning from one another and that is the meaning of the rule of noscitur a sociis. When foodstuffs
are associated with edible oil-deeds which have to be processed before the oil in them can be
consumed, it is appropriate to interpret foodstuffs in the wider sense as including all articles of food
which may be consumed by human beings after processing. Further, having regard to the history of
legislation relating to foodstuffs and the object of the Central Act which regulates the production,
supply and distribution of essential commodities amongst the poverty-stricken Indian People, the
expression foodstuffs should be given a wider meaning as including even raw materials which
ultimately result in edible articles.

In State of Karnataka vs Union of India AIR 1978 SC 68 the question of interpreting the word
‘powers’ as appearing in Article 194 (30) of the Constitution was involved. This word has been used
in the company of words ‘privileges’ and ‘immunities’ of a House of a Legislature. The Supreme
Court observed that the word must take its meaning from the associated words, and thus
interpreted it must mean such powers of a house as are necessary for the conduct of its business
and not legislative powers.

In A.V. Private Ltd Vs State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1998 SC2278 while interpreting the word ‘use’
in entry 52 of the State List in the seventh schedule of the Constitution which says, ‘Taxes on the
entry of goods into a local area for consumption, use’ or sale, therein the Supreme Court held that
the word ‘use’ took its meaning from other associated words ‘consumptions’ and ‘sale’ and son to
attract octroi duty the commodity had to be in use for an indefinite period in such a way that it
came to rest finally and permanently within the municipal limits.

Assignment

1. Write a short note on the rule ‘Noscitur a sociis’. ( 150 words)

2. How ‘Noscitur a sociis’’ rule is different from ‘Ejusdem generis’ rule.(100 words)

Assignment has to be submitted through email within 8am next day i.e. 27.3.2020
It can be handwritten or typed. In word document or pdf.
Document must be named in following manner:
BBALLB8_STUDENT NAME_ASSIGNMENT DATE AND LECTURE NO_SUBJECT

FACULTY EMAIL ID: anindyaprosad.konar@gitarattan.edu.in