Skip to main content

Harmonious Construction

 Harmonious Construction


A legal doctrine is a principle, a theory, or a position that is commonly applied and upheld by the courts.

Indian constitution helps us to interpret the laws. Harmonious construction is known as the thumb rule

for interpreting any statue. This doctrine is used when there arises an inconsistency between two or

more statutes or sections of a particular statute.

There is the history behind the doctrine, it was first seen in the case C.P and Berar Act, in this case, the

court resolved the issue of inconsistency between an entry of list -1 and entry list –ii in the Indian

constitution and interpreted them harmoniously. In this case, the question arises whether a tax imposed

by a provincial legislature on the sale is excise duty. In this case, the Supreme court held that it would be

peculiar if the union had exclusive power to tax retail sales when the province had executive power to

make laws concerning trade and commerce, its production and supply, and distribution of goods within

its boundaries. Hence it was a sale tax and the act was not ultra vires. The court added that there was no

overlapping or conflict of two entries, so as to apply a non- obstante clause.

The same thing was seen in the case of, Shankari Prasad Sing Deo v. union of India, in the case the

conflict was between the fundamental rights and directive principles of the constitution of India. In this

case, the Apex court used harmonious construction, fundamental rights are granted against the state

and can be infringed in this case. The court cleared that both are part of the state policy and they are

part of the same coin, therefore it is important to work for them together, it was further held that

fundamental rights enforced limitation over both the legislature and executive power

The view of the judiciary is that the court should be viewed as a whole. This doctrine is used to prevent

confusion or incompatibility between the different sections o parts of the statute being used. The scope

of the doctrine is very straightforward as mentioned above.

Case; East India Hotels LTD v. Union of India, it was held that an act should be read as a whole, the

different provisions have to be harmonized and the effect to be given to all of them.

Case; Qureshi v. State of Bihar, Apex court held that the state should implement the directive principle

in a way so as that it will not interfere with the fundamental right

Case; Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading, it was seen in this case that if more than n interpretation is

possible for a statute the court has to choose the interpretation which shows the intention of the

legislature

Case; Yakub Abdul Menon v. the State of Maharashtra, the supreme court held that the conflict

between the provisions of two statutes has to be resolved by reference to the purpose and policy

underlying two enactments. The court must take into consideration principal subject matter and

particular perspective in order to determine whether a statute is a special or general one.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree