71912972 Golden Rule of Interpretation

of 15

Please download to get full document.

View again

All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
15 pages
4 downs
  1 Golden Rule Of Interpretation Submitted By:  2 Parunjeet Singh Chawla 77/09 UILS, Panjab University Table of Contents Literal Meaning Modified 4 Lord Wensleydale's Golden Rule 4 Literal Golden Mischief 5 Interpretative Process 6 Application of Golden Rule 8 Indian Cases (Supreme Court) 10 Difficulties in the Application of Golden Rule 13 Criticism of Golden Rule 14 Conclusion 15 Bibliography 16  3 Table of Cases 1.   Annapurna Biscuit Manufacturing Co. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U P 10 2.   Becke v Smith ,(1836) 2 M&W 19 4 3.   Collector of Customs, Baroda v Digvijayasinhji Mills   AIR 1961 SC 1549 6 4.   Day Simpson (1885) 34 LJMC 149 7 5.   Free Lanka Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ranasinghe (1964) AC 541 7 6.   Glaxo Laboratories (I) Ltd. v. Presiding Officer AIR 1989 SC 505 15 7.   Grey v. Pearson [1857] 6 H.L.C. 61 4,6,15 8.   Inland Revenue Commissioner v. J.B. Hodge & Co. (Glasgow) Ltd., 9.   (1961) 1 WLR 92 7 10.   Jugal Kishore Saraf v. Raw Cotton Co. Ltd, AIR 1955 SC 376 6 11.   Lee v. Knapp (1966) 3 AH ER 961. 8 12.   Matteson v Hart ,(1854) 23 LJCP 108 5 13.    Narendra Kiadivalapa v. Manikrao Patil 14.    Nokes v. Doncaster Amalgamated Collieries Ltd 3 All ER 549 (HL). 7,9 15.    Nyadar Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 1979 7 16.   R. v. Sweden Lord Parker (1964) 1 WLR 1454. 7 17.   Ramji Missar v. State of Bihar , AIR 1963 SC 1088: 9 18.   Shamarac v. Parulkarv. Distt. Magistrate, Thana 1952 SCR 863. 12 19.   ShriRam v State of Maharashtra AIR 1961 SC 674 6 20.   State of Kerala v West Coast Planters MR 1958 Ker 41, 4 21.   State of Rajasthan v. Mrs. Leela Jain AIR 1965 SC 1296 15 22.   T.S. Baliah v. T.S. Regachari, AIR 1969 SC 701 5 23.   Tirath Singh v. Bachitter Singh 10  4 24.   Vacher v London Society of Compositors, [ 1913] AC 107 6 25.   Warburton v Loveland, (1857) 6 HL 61, p 106,26 LJ Ch 473 4 Introduction : Literal Meaning Modified Legislative intent is sought in the actual words used which are under stood in their natural and ordinary meaning and this is known as the grammatical interpretation or the literal rule of interpretation .But sometimes this rule leads to absurdity and the golden rule comes in to remove it .This rule is a departure from the literal rule of interpretation and asserts that the literal rule may be modified. Parke B in  Becke v Smith 1  formulated the following well-known rule for the interpretation of statutes: If the precise words used are plain and unambiguous, in our judgment, we are bound to construe them in their ordinary sense, even though it does lead, in our view of the case, to an absurdity or manifest injustice. Words may be modified or varied where their import is doubtful or obscure, but we assume the function of legislators when we depart from, the ordinary meaning of the precise words used merely because we see, or fancy we see, an absurdity or manifest injustice from an adherence to their literal meaning. Burton J in  Warburton v Loveland, 2  observed: I apprehend it is a rule in the construction of statutes, that, in the first instance, the grammatical sense of the words is to be adhered to. If that is contrary to, or inconsistent with any expressed intention, or declared purpose of the statute, or if it would involve any absurdity, repugnance, or inconsistency, the grammatical sense must then be modified, extended, or abridged so far as to avoid such inconvenience, but no further. Lord Wensleydale's Golden Rule Lord Wensleydale called it the 'golden rule' and adopted it in  Grey v Pearson 3 and thereafter it is usually known as Lord Wensleydale's Golden Rule. This is another version of the golden rule. His Lordship expressed himself thus: 1  (1836) 2 M&W 191, 195,6LJEx54, 150 ER724; Allen,  Law in the Making,  fourth edn, pp 402-03;  Abbey v  Dale, Jervis  (1851) 20 LJCP 233, p 235; followed in  State of Kerala v West Coast Planters MR  1958 Ker 41, p 43;  Sirsilk Ltd v Govt ofAndhra Pradesh  AIR 1960 AP 373, p 375. 2 (1929) 1 H&B IR 623, p 648: Grammer may, no doubt, sometimes render assistance to law by helping to the construction, and thereby to the meaning of a sentence; but grammar, with reference to a living, and therefore, a variable language, is perhaps more difficult to deal with than law, and the rules of legal construction are more certain than the rules of grammatical construction. 3  (1857) 6 HL 61, p 106,26 LJ Ch 473,p 481  Abbot v Middleton  (1858) 11 ER 28 ,7 HLC 114 ,115 ,per Lord Wensleydale
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks