Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
General principles of interpretation:- If two constructions are possible upon the language of the statute, the court must choose the one which is consistant with good sense and fairness, andeschew the other which makes its operation unduly oppressive, unjust or unreasonable, cr which would lead to strange , inconsistant results or otherwise introduce an element of bewildering uncertainty and practical inconvenience in the working of the statue . Dalip Kumar Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1976 SC 133. An interpretation which would render a provision nugatory is to be avoided . Charan Singh v. Majo, AIR 1976 Pb. 310. Simply because unjust results would ensue is no ground to refuse the relief or to give a different interpretation. Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1976 SC. 331. 5.Intention of Legislature :- The primary duty of the of curts is to give effect to the intention of the legislature as expressed in the words used by it and no outside consideration can be called in aid to find that intention. Pritam singh v. state, AIR 1950 SC 169; 1950 SCR: 453. 1950 SC 437. It is no doubt true that if on its true construction a statue leads to anomalous results, courts have no option but no option but to given effect to it and leave 4 Haryana [Ss. 1] it is the legislature to amend the law . But when on a construction of a statue two views are possible, one which results in anomaly and the other not, it is the duty of the courts to adopt the one which does not lead to anomaly and seek consolation in the thought that the the law bristles with anomalies. Veluswami v. Raja Narain , ( 1955) Supp (1) SCR 623. The expression of well known legal significance and connotations used by the legislature should be interpreted in the sense in which they are normaly understood . R.S. Bhatia v. state , AIR 1981 SC 1275 (July). it was futher observed in this case the same words used in the same expression should be given same meaning. The decision of other countries are not relevant when the language of he statute is clear. CIT Bombayk v.Bar Council of India, AIR 1981 SC 1462 Aug.