Textual Interpretation Of Statute Should Match With Contextual Interpretation

Case: RENAISSANCE HOTEL HOLDINGS INC. Vs B. VIJAYA SAI

Coram: Justices L. Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna observed

Case No.: CA 404 OF 2022

Court Observation: “It is thus trite law that while interpreting the provisions of a statute, it is necessary that the textual interpretation should be matched with the contextual one. The Act must be looked at as a whole and it must be discovered what each section, each clause, each phrase and each word is meant and designed to say as to fit into the scheme of the entire Act. No part of a statute and no word of a statute can be construed in isolation. Statutes have to be construed so that every word has a place and everything is in its place.”

“One of the purposes for which the said Act has been enacted is prohibiting the use of someone else’s trade mark as a part of the corporate name or the name of business concern. If the entire scheme of the Act is construed as a whole, it provides for the rights conferred by registration and the right to sue for infringement of the registered trade mark by its proprietor. The legislative scheme as enacted under the said statute elaborately provides for the eventualities in which a proprietor of the registered trade mark can bring an action for infringement of the trade mark and the limits on effect of the registered trade mark. By picking up a part of the provisions in sub­section (4) of Section 29 of the said Act and a part of the provision in sub­­-section (1) of Section 30 of the said Act and giving it a textual meaning without considering the context in which the said provisions have to be construed, in our view, would not be permissible. We are at pains to say that the High Court fell in error in doing so.”

“Ignoring this principle, the High Court has picked up clause (c) of sub­section (4) of Section 29 of the said Act in isolation without even noticing the other provisions contained in the said sub­section (4) of Section 29 of the said Act. Similarly, again while considering the import of subsection (1) of Section 30 of the said Act, the High Court has only picked up clause (b) of sub­section (1) of Section 30 of the said Act, ignoring the provisions contained in clause (a) of the said sub­section (1) of Section 30 of the said Act.”

Previous posts

Not Necessary To Call For Handwriting Experts In Departmental Enquiry; Test Of Criminal Proceedings Not Applicable: Supreme Court

Sub-Lessee Cant Acquire Status Of Tenure Holder Under UP Land Ceiling Act If Sub-Lease Was Contrary To Conditions: Supreme Court

Arbitral Award Can’t Be Challenged On Ground That Arbitrator Has Failed To Appreciate Facts: Supreme Court

Writ Petition By Borrowers Challenging SARFAESI Proceedings Initiated By Private Banks/ARCs Not Maintainable: Supreme Court

Lis Pendens – Transfer Of Property Not Void Just Because It Is Made During Pendency Of Suit; But Subject To Outcome Of Case: Supreme Court

Application For Initiating CIRP Has To Be Rejected If A Dispute Truly Exists In Fact And Is Not Spurious, Hypothetical Or Illusory: Supreme Court Download Judgement