Statute To Be Read As A Whole: in Case of Ambiguity:: Attar Singh vs. Inder Kumar (1967 SC 773)

Module 3
Statute to be read as a whole:
In case of ambiguity:
✓ 1st Stage: Internal content (Immediate meaning of the words) , in case this
does not work
✓ 2nd Stage: Sections
✓ 3rd Stage: Sub-sections
✓ 4th Stage: External context (Preamble, long title, etc.)
Attar Singh Vs. Inder Kumar [1967 SC 773]
Tenant: Attar Singh
Land lord: Inder Kumar
Impugned Act 7 provision: Punjab rent Restriction Act, 1949; Section 13(a)(ii)
As per the provision, The land lord can take possession of his rented land if –
(a) He requires it for his own use,
(b) He is not occupying any other such rented land for the purpose of business
in the urban area, and
(c) He has not vacated such rented land without sufficient cause.
Facts of the case:
- The land lord asked tenant to vacate house for residential purpose.
- Rent Controller rejected the matter
- Appellate Authority is dealing with the matter
- The disputed issue is Clause (a): Can “own use” be for “any use”?
- Because of the usage of comma after clause (a), it [clause (a)] cannot be
read individually or independently.
Butter Vs. Bennett [(1963), Ch 185]

(In case details ‘mischief’ word is mentioned by a judge) it is mentioned that the
ambiguity is there to tax those employees who got repayment /or claimed large
sum of amount as perks in the name of maintenance of their company
accommodation): my comment
Impugned provisions:
1
- S. 161 (1) of Income Tax Act, 1952
- S. 161 (3) of Income Tax Act, 1952
Section 161 (1): Employee is chargeable to the cost ‘of living or other
accommodation, of entertainment, of domestic or other services or of other
benefits or facilities of whatsoever nature’ that the employee is provided by the
company that employs him.
There is an exception to Section 161(1). By Sub-section (3), an employee, if

required by the company, was not accountable for expenses incurred by the
company ‘in or in connection with the provision of living accommodation for an
employee in part of any of its…premises’,
Facts of the case:

- The Respondent was employed as a mill manager and was required by his
employing company to live in a house provided by them.
- He occupied this residence as representative of his employers and the
company paid for coal and electricity supplied to the house and for the
services of a gardener. His employment was one to which the provisions of
the Income Tax Act, 1952, applied.
- On appeal to the Special Commissioners against assessments to Income Tax
in respect of payments by the company for coal, electricity and gardening,
- Respondent (Bennett) contended that these payments should be regarded
as expenses incurred by the company in connection with the provision of
living accommodation and that, therefore, they were not assessable
benefits received by him.
- The Special Commissioners allowed the appeal.
- Held: for the purposes of Section 161(3), ‘expense incurred…in or in
connection with the provision of living accommodation for an employee’
must be confined to expenditure necessary to provide and maintain some
immovable property as a residence.
The ambiguity is regarding the ‘in or in connection with the provision of living
accommodation’, i.e., the ambit of “living accommodation”.
2
Afjal Imam Vs. State of Bihar [(2011) 5 SCC 729]
Impugned provision: Section 27 dealing with the term of Mayor, ESC and
the term of Municipality.
Challenged: S. 27 ultra vires to Article 14.
Facts:
- Election of Bihar Municipal Corporation, Mayor and Deputy mayor were
elected
- U/S Sec. 21(3) of Bihar Municipal Act, 2007. As per Empowered Standing
Committee (ASC) Mayor has the power to elect the members.
- After two years of election, No Confidence motion was passed and a new
mayor and Deputy Mayor were elected [S.23(3)]
- Afjal Imam, the new mayor, wanted to select his own team.
- After a Mayor is removed under section 25 (4) of the Act, a new Mayor is to
be elected under section 23 (3) of the Act. This section does not say that
the newly elected Mayor will not have the powers of nominating the other
members on the Empowered Standing Committee which is available to the
Chief Councillor or Mayor under section 21 (3) of the Act.
Held:
• By stating that the nomination of the members on the Empowered
Standing Committee is a one-time act, the respondents are adding words
in section 21 (3) of the Act. Thus, in a way, they are supplying in section
21 (3) the words `only by the first Chief Councillor and not by his successors
in office’.
• A literal interpretation of section 27 of the Act will clearly bring it in conflict

with section 21 (3) of the Act, and will also be violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
• But, considering the statute as a whole, the intention of the legislature

(from the provisions of the Act and the Rules) is to have a `Mayor-in-
Council' who enjoys the confidence of the Municipal House. The
3
Empowered Standing Committee along with him is vested with the
executive power and is expected to run the municipal governance. There is
no reason to treat the subsequently elected Mayor differently, and deny
him the right to nominate his nominees on the Empowered Standing
Committee which right is available to the duly elected Mayor under section
21 (3) of the Act.
“Statute as a whole”: Meaning of a provision may remain incomplete if not read

in light of the spirit of the whole statute.
In this case, the new mayor does not have a chance to work with people of his
choice for better governance, while the former mayor had people of his choice.
Technical Meaning:
(Technical meaning of the word to be considered).
• Scientific parlance, legal, artistic, educational, commercial or technical
parlance
• May be segregated from the literal meaning
• The question “Is the acquired meaning due to usage in such technical
parlance” to be considered.
Cases:
1. Educational:
Juthika Bhattacharya Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1960) 4 SCC 96
Impugned Act: Madhya Pradesh Local Authorities School Teachers (Absorption in
Govt. Services) Act of 1963
- Clause 3(b): Eligibility – P.G. & Experience
Facts:
- Petitioner had B.A. and B.T. degrees.
- Contention of the petitioner: B.T. is equivalent to P.G. because it is taken
after B.A.
- Court held that P.G. is a higher degree of Post-Graduation and not just a
degree taken after Graduation.
4
2. Legal Parlance:
Ashwini Kumar Ghosh Vs. Arakinda Bose 1952 SC 369
Facts:
- Petitioner was an advocate at SC
- He filed case at Original Side of Calcutta HC
- Rejected by the Registrar of HC observing that “case must be filed by an
“attorney”
- Petitioner was offended and filed case under SC Advocates (Practice in
HC) Act of 1951.
- u/s (2): If an advocate is practicing at SC, he has the right to practice at
any HC irrespective of him being enrolled or not.
- HC Held: “Attorney” is - who had access to bar library/member of Bar
Library – can practice on original side.
- Legal technical meaning of “practice”: counsel, act, plead and draft.
- SC held: As per Technical meaning of “Practice”, Petitioner has the right to
practice on original side.
Why technical meaning? How to know if we have to interpret under technical or

literal meaning?
Associated Cement Co. ltd. vs. State of M P (2004) 9 SC 727

Ambiguity: “Refractory Cement”: Whether cement include ‘refractory cement’?
To be interpreted under technical meaning because it has specific usage (specially
made in blast furnaces to resist high temperature).
3. Commercial Parlance:
Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar vs. State of U.P. & Others (2008) 8 SCC 3005
Question in dispute: Whether ‘zarda’ is manufactured or processed. That is,
whether tobacco’s originality is retained?
Held: Tobacco and Zarda are different. Zarda is manufactured and not processed.
Therefore, Tobacco does not retain its entity post manufacturing.

Statute To Be Read As A Whole: in Case of Ambiguity:: Attar Singh vs. Inder Kumar (1967 SC 773)

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Statute To Be Read As A Whole: in Case of Ambiguity:: Attar Singh vs. Inder Kumar (1967 SC 773)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Statute To Be Read As A Whole: in Case of Ambiguity:: Attar Singh vs. Inder Kumar (1967 SC 773)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Module 3

Statute to be read as a whole:

Butter Vs. Bennett [(1963), Ch 185]

There is an exception to Section 161(1). By Sub-section (3), an employee, if

Facts of the case:

• A literal interpretation of section 27 of the Act will clearly bring it in conflict

• But, considering the statute as a whole, the intention of the legislature

“Statute as a whole”: Meaning of a provision may remain incomplete if not read

Why technical meaning? How to know if we have to interpret under technical or

Associated Cement Co. ltd. vs. State of M P (2004) 9 SC 727

You might also like