“Reliance is placed on Sri Nasiruddin, (1975) 2 SCC 671.
Muhammed Ashraf, AIR 2009 KER 14 took support from the dictum in Holmes v. Bradfield Rural District Council, 1949 (1) All ER 381 and also in Sri Nasiruddin, (1975) 2 SCC 671 wherein this Court adopted ‘just, reasonable and sensible’ interpretation.”
– Hon’ble Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, The Authorised Officer, Indian Bank v. D. Visalakshi, [Civil Appeal No. 7554-7555 of 2019].
“If the precise words used are plain and unambiguous, they are bound to be construed in their ordinary sense. The mere fact that the results of a statute may be unjust does not entitle a Court to refuse to give it effect. If there are two different interpretations of the words in an Act, the Court will adopt that which is just, reasonable and sensible rather than that which is none of those things. If the inconvenience is an absurd inconvenience, by reading an enactment in its ordinary sense, whereas if it is read in a manner in which it is capable, though not in an ordinary sense, there would not be any inconvenience at all; there would be reason why one should not read it according to its ordinary grammatical meaning. Where the words are plain the Court would not make any alteration.”
– Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Justice A.N. Ray, Sri Nasiruddin, (1975) 2 SCC 671.