LexS. GANAPATHRAJ SURANA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS / (1992) 3 S.C.R. A 19(l)(f),(g) of the Constitution, as the Kamataka Act was passed before 19(1)(f) was omitted from tile Constitution; tllat it was a constitutional policy for entrusting only such .,atters concerning agriculture to the States and leaving the remaining field either for ~he Union's list I or the Concurrent List Ill; that as a result oftbe proclamation of Emergency, the B enforcement of the fundamental rights was suspended but the rights themselves did not disappear; that when the Emergency was withdrawn, the impediment by way of suspension of the enforcement of the rights disappeared Hd the Act, if found to be in violation of the fundamental rights had to be declared ultra vires; that as a direct result of the Kamataka Act a particular class of debts automatically disappeared and the creditors C were deprived of their right to hold their property in the shape of the loan due to them. D E Dismissing the writ petitions, appeals and Special Leave Petition, this Court HELD : 1.01. The cardinal rule of interpretation that words should be read in their ordinary, natural and grammatical meaning is subject to this rider that while construing a constitutional document conferring legislative power the most liberal construction should be put upon the words so that the same may have effect in their widest amplitude. [727G] 1.02. None of the items in the Usts is to be read in a narrow or restricted/ sense, and that each general word should be held to extend to all ancillary or subsidiary matters which can fairly and reasonably be said to be comprehended in it. [728A] F Navinch,andra Mafatlal v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City, [1955] 1 · SCR 829 at 836-837; United Provinces v. Mst. Atiqa Begum and others, (1940) F.C.R. UO;A.L.S.P.P.L. Subrahmanyam Chettiarv.Mut- tuswami Goundan, (1940) FCR 188; Prafulla KJ/mar Mukherjee & Ors. v. The Bank of Commerce Ltd. Klntinfl, Indian Appeals; (L.R. Vol. LXXIV) 23; G Veefappa v. Chinnasam~ (1950) II M.W. 328; Mannikkasundara v. R.S. Nayu.du, (1946) F.C.R. 67 and State of Madras v. Gannon Dynkerley;& Co., (Madras) Ltd., (1959] SCR 379, referred to. 1.03. The purpose of inclusion of the subsequent words in entry No. 30 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution was to illustrate H the scope and the object of the legislation envisaged by the opening - r- - y SURANA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 723 expression. The latter part serves another purpose also. (7298) 1.04. 11aere was some scope for controversy as to the area covered by an entry limited to the first part or the present Entry No.JO. [7.29C] 1.05. The decision giving a wide meaning to the expression could not A be binding on the Supreme Court and so long the matter was not finally B settled by this Court, the courts in the meantime could have been.flooded by unnecessary litigation. This has been al·oided by including the second part which should be treated as illustrating the scope and object or the legislation in the first part. (7290) 1.06. The second part has been included by way of abundant caution. C The use of the word "relief' is also conscious so as to emphasise the wide range of orders which can be passed bestowing benefits on the debtors of various kinds. Taking a hypothetical case where the debtor has rec.eived grains as loan on a condition to return the same in larger quantity, it is open to the legislature to ~duce the burden or the debtor by providing ror D a monetary relief to be calculated in a particular manner. [729E] 1.07. The word "indebtedness" by itself also could have given occasion for controversy on the ground of vagueness; but in the context it has been mentioned in the Entry, there is no room for doubt left. [729F] 1.08. There is no merit in the argument of the learned counsel that a scheme was adopted in the Constitution with respect to distribution of the subjects in the three lists to the Seventh Schedule, and that the State legislature was entrusted only with agricultural matters. The larg~ number of entries in List II negative such an inference. [729G] A.L.S.P.P.L. Subrahmanyam Chettiar v. Muttuswami Goundan, (1940) FCR 188; Bank of Commerce Ltd. v. Kunja Behari Km and Upendra Chandra Kar, (1944) FCR 370; Praful/a Kumar Mukherjee & Ors. v. The Bank of Commerce Ltd., Khulna, Indian Appeals, (L.R. Vol. LXXIV) 23; Pathumma E F and others v. State of Kera/a and others, [1978]
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.