The Proviso II / The Revival of Ray XVI

In Dwarka Prasad v. Dwarka Das Saraf, (1976) 1 SCC 128 this Court held:

“A proviso must be limited to the subject-matter of the enacting clause. It is a settled rule of construction that a proviso must prima facie be read and considered in relation to the principal matter to which it is a proviso. It is not a separate or independent enactment.

“Words are dependent on the principal enacting words to which they are tacked as a proviso. They cannot be read as divorced from their context” [Thompson v. Dibdin, 1912 AC 533].

A proviso ordinarily is but a proviso, although the golden rule is to read the whole section, inclusive of the proviso, in such manner they mutually throw light on each other and result in a harmonious construction.

A proviso cannot be used to nullify or set at naught the substantive provision contained in the main enactment.”

Hon’ble Justice R.F. Nariman, Delhi Development Authority v. Virender Lal Bahri, [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 37375 of 2016].

_____

My Lord, Judges in Dwarka Prasad, (1976) 1 SCC 128?

Four. Hon’ble Judges K.K. Mathew, S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, V.R. Krishna Iyer; Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Justice A.N. Ray.

My Lord, Gujarat Ambuja, (2005) 4 SCC 214 quoted Dwarka Prasad?

Yes.

My Lord, Gujarat Ambuja?

Appeared.

Nariman.png