IOS

4 main reasons for ios

1. Not cleary mentioned, complex lan, if menaing of the word is changed time to time,
if any circumstances missed during drafting of legislature, if vague

 Deing v. tarola (regulated weapons should nt be carried in public, belt was used
which was regulated, case filed, held he can use as his purpose is diff, s6 of weapons
act)
 Grace v. fraser (if there is accident it should be informed, park, forgot hand break,
accident, she didn’t inform, didn’t made laible)
 Frigaliment importing co. v. bns international sales corp (chicken, ordered 2, 1.52,
2.53, younger once asked, older once given, money not given, case filed, any once
can be given, chicken includes both)
 Interstate commerce commission v. allen (chicken case) (manufactured good if
transferred from one st to another, is chicken manufacturing good, held chicken is
not manufactured good)
 American fruit growers case (manufactured goods explained, raw should be changed
to another form)
 Raffles v. wichadhans (125 of bags of bales, shiping through Liverpool ship, there are
two shops arriving in oct and dec, here there no meeting of minds)

Sources on interpretation
Interpretative act (s3 of tp)
General claused act
Rules and principles of ios
Dictionary

Types of statutes (duration, effect, operation, nature, object, content, subject matter, and
extent of appli)(temp perm)(immediate prospective restrospective)(general special local)
(directory mandatory)(enabling disabling permissive codified curative amending declarative)
(substantive adjective)(criminal civil etc)
 Municipal co of hyd v. pv murty (
 Attar singh v. index Kumar (
 Pandit kam narain v. st of up (a to c, ticket counter in b, 14(1)(a) of up town areas
act, imposed tax on counter, he said this is. T property and he was nt residing there,
held cl. F r. 3 should be read together, business also included and should pay)
Literal rule (intention of parliament)
 Susexx perage case (cj tindal supported)
 Cutter v. eagle star insurance (parking lot, accident, insurance given only of road,
held this is not road)
 Inland revenue commission v. hinchy (if someone didn’t pay tax, it will become
triple, paid half on last and other half later, he asked to triple half, held to pay
complete triple)
 Whitely v. chappel (any person entitled to vote, impersonation is offence, died
person impersonated, not liable)
 Motipur zamindar corp v. st of bh (exception of sale tax on vegetables, is sugarcane
vegetable or not, held it is grass)

1
  St of wb v. washi ahmed (ginger is vegetable)
 Midland trust co ltd v. green (register a land option given by father said to son, son
didn’t take, then gave to wife for low price, she shared equally, son asks for all, 13(2)
of land charges act, here there should be money worth, here def says there is not
money worth, held no prob)
 London and north eastern railway v. Berriman (oiling railway track, is this repair, held
not repair)
 Magbool Hussain v. st of bom (gold at Bombay airport, fera and sea customs act, he
said this is double jeropardy, held nt)
 Shri ram v. st of mh (207(a) of crpc, non examination of witness, convicted by lower
by nt examining, hc upheld, sc upheld, shall is mandatory and examination should be
done)
 R v. migginnis (s5 cl3 of misuse of drugs act, drugs in car, not his but friends, this is
not supply)
 R v. brown (5(2)(b) of data protection, data access and saying to another , is crime,
to know number vehicles he accessed and didn’t said to other, held nt liable)
 Dempsey aka pitt bull case (muzzle should be there for dog, dog died before
punishment, basically ownership changed to another national)
Golden role
 Lee v. knapp (s77 cl1 road transport act, if there is an accident he should nt run, hit
and stopped and ran, liable)
 Grey v. pearson (grammatical and ordinary sense of the work is to be adhered to,
unless that would lead to some absurdity some repugnance or inconsistence, with
the rest of the instrument in which case the grammatical and ordinary sense of the
words)
 Adler v. George (vicinity was prohibited, where he is in the property, held liable)
 R v. Sigsworth (died without will then property goes to next family person, son killed
mother so property was not given)
 R v. allen (57 of persons act, there should be no second marriage during the lifetime
of spouge, )
 Kenee v. muncaster (vehicle parked cop permission should be taken, he is cop in off
duty, held liable)
 Up bhoodan yagna samiti v. braj Kishore (landless people got land, respondent
obtained land, this was cancelled as he was not residing in that village, not landless,
and there is no approval, commissioner cancelled, hc quashed as he had no land In
that particular village, sc s14 this only to agriculture field)
 G Narayana swami v. g rannesselvan (electorate, graduate election, non graduate
won elections, he was taken off, case filed, art. 17(1) 1/3 rd
 Nokes v. doncaster amalagamated (2 co alamag, rights and liabilities were also
transferred, worker continued to old premises due to his unawareness terminated
held no as property cannot be transferred under this)
 Prof zanders – unpredictable safety value
Mischief rule (is there in common law before, why didn’t give remedy before, what is
new remedy, reason of the remedy) (suppress remedy, increase remedy, suppress its
sources)
 Heydons case (mischief rule started
 Smith v. herghes (solicited from apartment to the man on street, held liable)
2
  Dpp v. bull (gigolo, same as above, not liable)
 Elliot v. grey (car parked, unusable condition, no insurance, owner said it is not
working so no insurance, court held that it is on road so there should be insurance)
 Corkey v. capenter (drunk and drive, bicycle, s12 of licensing act, is cycle carriage, on
highway, liable)
 CIT v. smt sodea devi (s16(3) family member of partnership firm, husband will be
assesse, husband died, w is assesse, 3 major and 3 minor sons, held she shouldn’t
pay)
Purposive approach (modern version of mischief rule)(simplified approach,
 R v. secretary of st for health ex parte (human fertilization and embryology act 1990,
 Corp of Calcutta v. liberty … (