Click to edit Master title style

DISSOLUTION
OF A
PARTNERSHIP
FIRM
1
 Introduction
Click to edit Master title style
• The term ‘Interpretation’ has been derived from the Latin term ‘interpretari’,
which means to explain, expound, understand, or to translate. Interpretation
is the process of explaining, expounding and translating any text or anything
in written form.
• Interpretation of statutes is the correct understanding of the law. This process
is commonly adopted by the courts for determining the exact intention of the
legislature. Because the objective of the court is not only merely to read the
law but is also to apply it in a meaningful manner to suit from case to case.
• There can be mischief in the statute which is required to be cured, and this
can be done by applying various norms and theories of interpretation which
might go against the literal meaning at times. The purpose behind
interpretation is to clarify the meaning of the words used in the statutes which
might not be that clear.
• According to Salmond, “Interpretation”  is the process by which the court
seeks to ascertain the meaning of the legislature through the medium of
authoritative forms in which it is expressed.

2
 MISCHIEF RULE
Click to edit Master title style
• The mischief rule, “the most firmly established rule for construing an
obscure enactment” is another rule of statutory interpretation
traditionally applied by English courts. The rule was first laid out in a
16th-century ruling of the Barons of the Exchequer Court in Heydon’s
case which have been continually cited with approval and acted upon.
• The main aim of the rule is to determine the “mischief and defect” that
the statute in question has set out to remedy, and what ruling would
effectively implement this remedy.
• The rules as laid down in the Heydon’s case are that, for the sure and
true interpretation of all statutes, be they penal or beneficial or
restrictive or enlarging the common law, four things are to be discerned
and considered:
1. what was the common law before the making of the Act ?
2. what was the mischief and defunct for which the common law did not
provide ?
3. what remedy, the Parliament had resolved and appointed to cure the
disease ?
4. the true reason of the remedy.
3
Click to edit Master title style

CASE LAWS

4
Click to edit Master title style
Heydon’s Case
Facts: 
1.That, Ottery college, a religious college gave tenancy in a manor to a man
named Ware and his son.
2.That, the tenancy was given in accordance with the copyhold. A copyhold
was a form of landholding in which the land was said to be held according to
the will of the lord and customs of the manor.
3.That, the copyhold given to the Wares was part of a parcel.
4.That, the parcel was then leased to a man named Heydon.
5.That, less than a year later, the college was dissolved along with all other
religious colleges because of a law that parliament enacted.
6.That, the law parliament enacted had a provision which kept in force the
lease that was granted more than a year before the enactment of the Act. 

5
Click to edit Master title style
Decision: As a result of the provision, the lease
granted to the Wares was held valid but the
lease granted to Heydon was held to be void.

Basis for Judgment: While making the

decision, the court laid down the mischief rule.
It was stated in this case that the statute should
be constructed by seeking the true intent of the
makers of the Act.

6
Click to edit Master title style
That in this case the common law was, that religious persons might
have made leases for as many years as they pleased, the mischief
was that when they perceived their houses would be dissolved, they
made long and unreasonable leases and principally for such
religious and ecclesiastical houses which should be dissolved after
the Act (as the said college in our case was) that all leases of any
land, whereof any estate or interest for life or years was then in
being, should be void; and their reason was, that it was not
necessary for them to make a new lease so long as a former had
continuance; and therefore the intent of the Act was to avoid
doubling of estates, and to have but one single estate in being at a
time: for doubling of estates implies in itself deceit, and private
respect, to prevent the intention of the Parliament.

7
 Smith
Click to v. Huges
edit Master title(1960
style
WLR 830)

• In this case around the 1960s, the prostitutes were soliciting in

the streets of London and it was creating a huge problem in
London. This was causing a great problem in maintaining law and
order. To prevent this problem, Street Offences Act, 1959 was
enacted. After the enactment of this act, the prostitutes started
soliciting from windows and balconies.
• Further, the prostitutes who were carrying on to solicit from the
streets and balconies were charged under section 1(1) of the said
Act. But the prostitutes pleaded that they were not soliciting from
the streets.
• The court held that although they were not soliciting from the
streets yet the mischief rule must be applied to prevent the
soliciting by prostitutes and shall look into this issue. Thus, by
applying this rule, the court held that the windows and balconies
were taken to be an extension of the word street and charge sheet
was held to be correct.
8
Click toDPP v Bull
edit Master title([1995]
style QB 883)

• A man was charged with an offense under s.1(1) of the Street

Offences Act 1959 which makes it an offense for a ‘common
prostitute to loiter or solicit in a public street or public place for
the purposes of prostitution’. The magistrates found him not
guilty on the grounds that ‘common prostitute’ only related to
females and not males. The prosecution appealed by way of case
stated.
• The court held that the Act did only apply to females. The word
prostitute was ambiguous and they applied the mischief rule. The
Street Offences Act was introduced as a result of the work of the
Wolfenden Report into homosexuality and prostitution. The
Report only referred to female prostitution and did not mention
male prostitutes. The QBD, therefore, held the mischief the Act
was aimed at was controlling the behavior of only female
prostitute 9
 Pyare
Click Lal Master
to edit v. Ramtitle
Chandra
style (4 (1979 WLN
591)

• The accused in this case, was prosecuted for selling the

sweeten supari which was sweetened with the help of an
artificial sweetener. He was prosecuted under the Food
Adulteration Act. It was contended by Pyare Lal that supari
is not a food item.
• The court held that the dictionary meaning is not always the
correct meaning, thereby, the mischief rule must be
applicable, and the interpretation which advances the
remedy shall be taken into consideration. Therefore, the
court held that the word ‘food’ is consumable by mouth
and orally. Thus, his prosecution was held to be valid.

1
0
Click to edit Master
Corkery title style([1960] 1 QB 367)7)
v Carpenter
• The defendant was riding his bicycle whilst under the influence
of alcohol. S.12 of the Licensing Act 1872 made it an offence to
be drunk in charge of a ‘carriage’ on the highway.
• It was held: The court applied the mischief rule holding that a
riding a bicycle was within the mischief of the Act as the
defendant represented a danger to himself and other road users.
According to S.12 of the Licensing Act 1872, a person found
drunk in charge of a carriage on the highway can be arrested
without a warrant. A man was arrested drunk in charge of a
bicycle. According to the plain meaning rule a bike is not a
carriage. Under the Mischief rule the bicycle could constitute a
carriage. The mischief the act was attempting to remedy was
that of people being on the road on transport while drunk.
Therefore a bicycle could be classified as a carriage.
1
1
Click to edit Master title style
RMDC v. UOI (AIR 1957 SC 628)8)

• In RMDC v Union of India the definition of ‘prize

competition’ under s 2(d) of the Prize competition act 1955,
was held to be inclusive of only those instances in which no
substantive skill is involved. Thus, those prize competitions
in which some skill was required were exempt from the
definition of ‘prize competition’ under s 2(d) of the Act.
• Hence, in the aforementioned case, the Supreme Court has
applied the Heydon’s Rule in order to suppress the mischief
was intended to be remedied, as against the literal rule
which could have covered prize competitions where no
substantial degree of skill was required for success.

1
2
Click to edit Master title style
Kanwar Singh v. Delhi
Administration (AIR 1965 SC 871)
• Issues of the case were as follows- section 418 of Delhi
Corporation Act, 1902 authorised the corporation to
round up the cattle grazing on the government land. The
MCD rounded up the cattle belonging to Kanwar Singh.
The words used in the statute authorised the corporation to
round up the abandoned cattle.
• It was contended by Kanwar Singh that the word
abandoned means the loss of ownership and those cattle
which were round up belonged to him and hence, was not
abandoned.
• The court held that the mischief rule had to be applied and
the word abandoned must be interpreted to mean let loose
or left unattended and even the temporary loss of
ownership would be covered as abandoned.
1
3
ClickPoonam Devi &
to edit Master Ant. v.
Oriental
title style
Insurance Company Ltd.(2020 4 SCC 55)
• Appellants are the legal heirs of the deceased, who
died of an accident in the course of the employment
but not arising out of the employment.
• The Question was whether he was entitled to
compensation under Employees’ Compensation
Act,1923 or not.
• The Court held that this is a beneficial legislation and
the same was enacted to provide compensation to the
employee for any accident during the course of their
work. Therefore Applying the Heydon’s Rule the
Appellants were held entitled to the compensation
under the act to save the purpose of the act.
1
4
Click to edit Master title style

ADVANTAGES
AND
DISADVANTAGES
OF
MISCHIEF RULE
1
5
Click to edit Master title style
Advantages:
1. The Law Commission sees it as a far more satisfactory
way of interpreting acts as opposed to the Golden or
Literal rules.
2. It usually avoids unjust or absurd results in
sentencing.
3. Closes loopholes.
4. Allows the law to develop and adapt to changing needs
example Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v.
Sri Krishna Manufacturing Company.

1
6
Click to edit Master title style
Disadvantages
1. It is seen to be out of date as it has been in use since the
16th century, when common law was the primary source
of law and parliamentary supremacy was not established.
2. It gives too much power to the unelected judiciary which
is argued to be undemocratic.
3. Creates a crime after the event example Smith v Hughes,
Corkery v Carpenter thus infringing the rule of law.
4. Gives judges a law making role infringing the separation of
powers and Judges can bring their own views, sense of
morality and prejudices to a case example Smith v Hughes,
DPP v Bull.

1
7
Click to edit Master title style
Conclusion
• Every nation has its own judicial system, the purpose
of which to grant justice to all. The court aims to
interpret the law in such a manner that every citizen
is ensured justice to all. To ensure justice to all the
concept of canons of interpretation was expounded.
These are the rules which are evolved for determining
the real intention of the legislature.
• It is not necessary that the words used in a statute are
always clear, explicit and unambiguous and thus, in
such cases it is very essential for courts to determine a
clear and explicit meaning of the words or phrases
used by the legislature and at the same time remove
all the doubts if any. Hence, all the rules mentioned in
the article are important for providing justice.

1
8
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Click to edit Master title style
1. Interpretation of Statutes- D.N. Mathur, Central Law
Publications, Allahabad (2008)
2. The Interpretation of Statutes- T. Bhattacharyya, Central Law
Agency, Allahabad (2009)

WEBLIOGRAPHY
1. www.lawteacher.net
2. www.blog.ipleaders.in
3. www.open.edu
4. www.indianjudiciarynotes.com
5. www.legaldesire.com
6. www.e-lawresources.co.uk
7. www.lawteacher.net

1
9
Click to edit Master title style

THANK YOU
Vivek Kumar Bansal
154/18
Sec-C
2020-21

2
0