[ad_1]
At this juncture, we may rely on Dilworth v. Commissioner of Stamps, (1899) AC 9 which has been consistently followed by this Court: “The word ‘include’ is very generally used in interpretation clauses in order to enlarge the meaning of words or phrases occurring in the body of the statute; and when it is so used these words or phrases must be construed as comprehending, not only such things as they signify according to their natural import, but also those things which the interpretation clause declares that they shall include. But the word ‘include’ is susceptible of another construction, which may become imperative, if the context of the Act is sufficient to shew that it was not merely employed for the purpose of adding to the natural significance of the words or expressions defined. It may be equivalent to ‘mean and include’, and in that case it may afford an exhaustive explanation of the meaning which, for the purposes of the Act, must invariably be attached to these words or expressions.”
Also see, Associated Indem Mechanical (P) Ltd. vs. W.B. Small Industries Development Corpn. Ltd., (2007) 3 SCC 607.
– Hon’ble Justice B.R. Gavai, Kotak Mahindra Bank v. A. Balakrishnan, [Civil Appeal No. 689 of 2021].
[ad_2]
Comments are closed.