Philips India Limited v. Labour Court, Madras, (1985) 3 SCC 103; Balasinor Nagrik Cooperative Bank Limited v. Babubhai Shankerlal Pandya, (1987) 1 SCC 606; Mohan Kumar Singhania v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 594; Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand Jain, (1997) 1 SCC 373; Jagdish Singh v. Lt. Governor, Delhi, (1997) 4 SCC 435; Commissioner of Income Tax v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers, (2003) 3 SCC 57.
The statute must be read as a whole. This rule of statutory construction is so firmly established, it is variously styled as ‘elementary rule’ [Attorney General v. Bastow, (1957) 1 All ER 497] and as a ‘settled rule’ [Poppatlal Shah v. State of Madras, AIR 1953 SC 274]. The only recognized exception to this well-laid principle is, it cannot be called in aid to alter the meaning of what is itself clear and explicit.
It is the duty of Court to make a consistent enactment of the whole statute. It is the duty of Court to avoid a head-on clash and construe the provisions which appear to be in conflict with each other in such a manner so as to harmonize them. It is settled, while interpreting a particular statutory provision, it should not result into making the other provision a ‘useless lumber’ or a ‘dead letter’. While construing the provisions, Court will have to ascertain intention in the backdrop of dominant purpose and underlying intendment of the statute.
– Hon’ble Justice B.R. Gavai, Sanjay Ramdas Patil v. Sanjay, [Civil Appeal No. 5060 of 2021].