Interpretation of Ststute
Interpretation of Ststute
Interpretation of Ststute
thanks to Miss Rupa Pradhan, class teacher in Law, Indian Institute of Legal Studies,
for his guidance, sound advice and affectionate attitude during the course of the study
work.
There is no hesitation in saying that she molded raw clay into whatever we are
through his incessant efforts and keen interest shown throughout the academic pursuit.
It is due to his patient guidance that I have been able to complete the task.
I would also thank the Indian Institute of Legal Studies Library for the wealth of
information therein. I express my regards to the Library staff for cooperating and
Date:
_____________________
BONNY BASAK
LL.B (3rd Semester) Roll No: 44
TABLE OF CONTENTS
___________________________________________________________
Research Methodology....4 - 5
A. Aims and Objectives..4
B. Statement of Problem...4
C. Research Hypothesis..4
D. Research Questions....4
E. Methodology of Research..5
F. Scope and Limitations..5
G. Review of Literature...5
Table of Cases..6
Chapter 1: Introduction7
BIBLIOGRAPHY.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
___________________________________________________________
A. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
The aims and objectives of this project are to understand the concept and the principle
of presumption as to jurisdiction. One of the aims of the project is to have a
comparative study on the condition for presumption as to jurisdiction of Interpretation
of Statute.
B. STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Muslims are lay high importance on providing care and protection for Gift (hiba)
under Muslim Law. Withering of joint family system has contributed to the challenges faced
by elderly. Nowadays they are forced to live alone and are exposed to various kinds of
problems such as lack of physical, social, emotional and financial support. To overcome such
difficulties and to face new challenges, the Government of India has enacted this law in the
fifty- eighth year of republic so as to provide maintenance and protection to parents and
senior citizens.
C. RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS
Research in common parlance refers to a search for knowledge. It is an original contribution
to the existing stock of knowledge making for its advancement. It is the pursuit of truth with
the help of study, observation, comparison and experiment. In short, the search for
knowledge through objective and systematic method of finding solution to a problem is
research. This research work is an attempt to distil lessons from the presumption as to
jurisdiction under Interpretation of statutes.
D. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Based on the statement of problem and research hypothesis aforementioned, the following
research questions have been formulated:
E. METHODOLOGY OF RESEARCH
Methodology implies more than simply the methods the researcher used to collect
data. It is often necessary to include a consideration of the concepts and theories
which underlie the methods. The methodology opted for the study on the topic is
Analytical and Doctrinal. Doctrinal research in law field indicates arranging, ordering
and analysis of the legal structure, legal frame work and case laws by extensive
surveying of legal literature but without any field work.
G. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The researcher while writing this project has taken recourse to various primary and secondary
sources. Primary sources would include various laws. Secondary sources would include
books and articles, reports and websites.
TABLE OF CASES
Introduction
But Cross says even if there are no ambiguities, presumptions can be used by
judge2.The courts can make certain presumptions/assumptions about the Law.
However if the statute clearly states the opposite to the presumption, it is void.
Presumptions are made by certain assumptions made by the Courts. They are
used only as a starting point. If they are disapproved then it is said the presumption
is rebutted.
Chapter-2
The Supreme Court held that the Punjab High Court has jurisdiction to issue writ to
the Investigation Commission in Delhi investigating under Section 5 of the Taxation
of Income (Investigation Commission) Act 1947 the case of the petitioners, who were
the assesses within the State of Uttar Pradesh and whose original assessments were
made by the Income Tax authorities of that State, even though subsequent
proceedings, which would have to be taken in pursuance of the report of the
Investigation commission would have to be taken by the income Tax authorities in
Uttar Pradesh , and if a case would have to be stated, it would has to stated to the
High Court at Allahabad. The question of the jurisdiction to issue writs by the High
Court, even though another remedy is available to the petitioner, came up for
consideration in
6.
T. Bhattcharyya The Interpretation of Statues, 6th Edition, p-209
Chapter-3
Him by the Constitution or by law, were binding on India since resolutions on these
were passed by the United Nations on the basis of support from many countries
including India.
The Supreme Court while holding that the freedom of speech and expression
guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution is not restricted to the territory of
India was in fact taking reference from Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights which declares that the freedom of expression and opinion is available
to all regardless of frontiers.
9.
T. Bhattcharyya The Interpretation of Statues, 6th Edition, p-226
10.
T. Bhattcharyya The Interpretation of Statues, 6th Edition, p-226
Chapter-4
generally applies within its territory only unless provided otherwise. Provision may,
however, be made in a statue that the statue applies to all subjects of the United
Kingdom whether living within its territory or abroad. Similarly, foreigners who stay
in United Kingdom are subject to jurisdiction of the English Courts. There may be
clearly stated exceptional situations in a statue wherein foreigners living abroad may
also be subject to the English jurisdiction. The general principle of private
international law is that land is subject exclusively to the laws of the State within
whose territory it lies, the nationality, residence and domicile of the owner of the
land being all irrelevant.
G.D. Singh v. Government of India AIR 1973 SC 2667 the Supreme Court
held that a foreigner national who is likely to continue indulging himself in activities
which are prejudicial to the security and integrity of India, as he has been doing in
the past, can be prevented from leaving India, as he has been doing in the past can
be prevented from leaving India to go a foreign country.
The Supreme Court held that criminal conspiracy is an offence of a continuing nature
and so overt acts of criminal conspiracy are committed at Dubai or Chandigarh are
immaterial and thus the offence can be tried in India without obtaining permission of
the Central Government as is required under section 188 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 for offences committed outside India but tribal in India under
section 4 of the Indian Penal Code.
11.
T. Bhattcharyya The Interpretation of Statues, 6th Edition, p-230
Chapter-5
Since a law is passed by the Crown for its subjects, there is a presumption that
a statute does not bind the crown. The Crown, by passing a statue, does not wish to
harm his own interest nor does he wish to interfere with his own rights. Therefore,
the normal presumption that the Crown is not bound by a statute unless so is
provided by express terms of the statute or by necessary implication. Maxwell states
that the Crown may be held to be bound by a statute in the following four cases:
Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. V. State of Kerala AIR 1997 SC 2275 14
The Supreme Court held that even though the Kerala Construction Workers Welfare
Funds Act, does not apply to the Central Government, a company which is fully
owned by the Central Government is bound by the provisions of the Act because a
company whose share capital is subscribed by the government has independent
existence and is not a government department.
The Supreme Court was seized of interpreting section 3 (1) (a) Andhra Pradesh
Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulations, 199. Under this provision no person is
authorised to transfer any land in the scheduled area to a non-tribal person. The
Supreme Court while interpreting the word person in this provisions held that the
government is also include within the word person and as such even the
government cannot transfer land in the scheduled area to a non-tribal person.
12.
T. Bhattcharyya The Interpretation of Statues, 6th Edition, p-232
13.
Ibid., at pp. 166 and 167
14. T. Bhattcharyya The Interpretation of Statues, 6th Edition, p-237