Author: TYC

ISSUE:

Whether sandalwood oil is considered a “wood oil” and hence, “forest produce” under Section 2(f)(i) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961?

Whether the process of collecting the oil should have relevance in considering the character of the oil so collected?

RULE:

Section 2(f)(i) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961: “Forest Produce” includes the following when found in or brought from, a forest, that is to say- (i) trees and leaves, flowers and fruits and all other parts or produce of trees, and charcoal.

Doctrine of Purposive Interpretation: This doctrine considers the purpose of the law when the language is unclear or ambiguous, or when the legislative intent of a provision of a statute isn’t immediately clear. A statute consists of two parts- the letter and the sense. This doctrine involves considering both parts- the objective and subjective purposes of the law.

ISSUE:

Whether the respondents can claim to have become the transferees of the decree by operation of law within the meaning of Order XXI, Rule 16, or otherwise be entitled to its benefit?

RULE:

The cardinal rule of construction of statutes is to read the statute literally, that is by giving the words their ordinary, natural and grammatical meaning. If such a reading leads in absurdity and an alternative interpretation is possible, the Court may adopt it. Failing that, the ordinary rule of literal interpretation must be applied.

ISSUE:

Whether sugarcane falls within the term “green vegetables” and is therefore exempt from sales tax under section 6 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947?

Whether the appellant, being a producer of sugar cane, was not a “dealer” within the meaning of the Act?

RULE:

The word “vegetable” in taxing statutes is to be understood as in common parlance, i.e., denoting a class of vegetables that are grown in a kitchen garden or on a farm and are used for the table.

ISSUE:

Whether section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, which provides for a higher solatium(compensation) proprio vigore (by its own force), applies to awards made after 24.09.1984, even if the land acquisition process started before that date?

What is the applicability of section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act,1984, which provides for an additional amount of compensation, in acquisition proceedings?

RULE:

Where an Act contains substantive, amending, or repealing provisions, it typically contains transitional provisions that regulate how those changes will take effect and modify their effect during the period of transition. If an Act does not include such provisions expressly, the Court must infer the intended transitional arrangements, considering the interpretative criteria that reflect Parliament’s intent.

If a strict grammatical interpretation of the law leads to absurdity or inconsistency, the Court could discard such interpretation and instead adopt one that aligns with the purpose of the legislature.