1.

C , Lord Denning said judge must not change material of which the act is woven , a
few minor changes are okay as long as it is ironing of the creases , not changing the
character of
BWSSB employee misconduct, objection raised the Board a statutory body performing a
sovereign function ,
The SC quoted Lord Denning to come to the conc that BWSSB is a was not industry, SC said
the definition of industry is very important and it is not defined properly hence relied upon to
iron out the creases since it is very vague the definition
2. Avoid addition of words , Hill Vs ….. S 18, Gaming Act 1845 'All contracts or
agreements ... by way of gaming or
wagering shall be
null and void, and that no suit shall be brought or maintained in any court of law or
equity for recovering any sum of money or valuable thing alleged to be won upon any
wager' Tattersall’s Committee
difference between wager agreement and insurance.
The case it was found that two phrases with different meanings cannot be substituted
for another , defendant agreed to pay money which was won upon wager .
3. State Of Bombay v. Ali Gulshan AIR 1955 SC 810
S 6(4)(a), Bombay Land Requisition Act 1948: 'The State Government may ...
requistition the
premises for the purpose of a State or any other public purpose'
state held that public purpose other than state purpose because words can’t be
redundant in a provision,
4. Sirajul Haq Khan v. The Sunni Central Board Of Waqf, UP AIR 1959 SC 198
S 5(2) United Provinces Muslims Waqf Act: ‘The mutawalli of a waqf or any person
interested in a
waqf or a Central Board may bring a suit in a civil court of competent jurisdiction for
a declaration
that any transaction held by the Commissioner of waqfs to be a waqf is not a waqf...’

In the above mentioned statement the words of a statue are , clear and plain or
unambiguous, i.e., they are bound to have more or less a redundancy in meaning, the
courts are bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of consequences. Tindal
CJ stated the rule stated in Sussex Peerage’s case is in the following form:
In the case where the words of the statute are itself very accurate and explicit, then
there is no necessity to explicate those words in their natural and ordinary sense.
These words are self-sufficient in such cases to best declare the intent of the
legislator.The discussed rule is also stated in another form.In the case where the
language of the text is simple and unambiguous and declares of only one meaning no
question of construction of a statute arises, for the law speaks for itself. In the case of
Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax, Bengal Vs. Keshab Chandra Mandal
deciding that a return of income signed by an illiterate person by the pen of his son
(Bakalam) was not a valid return of income for purposes of the Bengal Agricultural
Income-tax Act (II of 1946) which required that a return of income shall be verified
and the declaration shall be signed in the case of an individual by the individual
himself, S.R. Das J observed that the meaning of the language used by the legislature
cannot be excused to change the meaning given this meaning is clear on the face of
the statute or the rules.