Relevance of Illustration- Mahomed Shedol Ariffin v. Yeoh Ooi Gark (1)- Mahomed Syedol Ariffin vs Yeoh Ooi Gark on 20 July, 1916 Equivalent citations: (1917) 19 BOMLR 157
“It is the duty of a court of law to accept, if that can be done, the illustrations given as being both of relevance and value in the construction of the text. The illustrations should in no case be rejected because they do not square with ideas possibly derived from an other system of jurisprudence as to the law with which they are the sections deal And it would require a very special case to warrant their rejection on the ground of their assumed repugnancy to the sections themselves. It would be the very last resort of construction to make any such assumption. The great usefulness of the illustrations, which have, although no part of the sections, been expressly furnished by the Legislature as helpful in the working and application of the statute, should not be thus impaired.”
Illustration cannot modify language of Section-Shambhu Nath Mehra Vs. The State of Ajmer [AIR 1956 SC 404]
“13. We recognise that an illustration does not exhaust the full content of the section which it illustrate but equally it can neither curtail nor expand its ambit; and if knowledge of certain facts is as much available to the prosecution, should it choose exercise due diligence, as to the accused, the facts cannot be said to be especially” within the knowledge of the accused.
Words of the Section prevails over Illustration– Aniruddha Mitra vs Administrator General Bengal on 5 April, 1949 Equivalent citations: (1949) 51 BOMLR 971
It is well settled that just as illustrations should not be read as extending the meaning of a section, they should also not be read as restricting its operation, especially so, when the effect would be to curtail a right which the plain words of the section would confer.
Meaning of Erroneous-M/S. The Malabar Industrial Co. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … on 10 February, 2000
An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous. In the same category fall orders passed without applying the principles of natural justice or without application of mind. when an Income-tax Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue; or where two views are possible and the Income-tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law.
Delegated Legislation and Power to Make Rules under the Act- Agricultural Market Committee vs Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd on 7 May, 1997
23. The reasons for giving delegated power to the Government to make Rules are many, but the most prominent and dominant reasons are:
(i) The area for which powers are given to make delegated legislation may be technically complex, so much so, that it may not be possible and may even be difficult to set out all the permutations in the Statute.
(ii) The Executive may require time to experiment and to find out how the original legislation was operating and thereafter to fill up all other details.
(iii) It gives an advantage to the Executive, in the sense that a Government with an onerous legislative time schedule may feel tempted to pass skeleton legislation with the details being provided by the making of Rules and Regulations.
24. The power of delegation is a constituent element of the legislative power as a whole under Article 245 of the Constitution and other relative Articles and when the Legislatures enact laws to meet the challenge of the complex socio-economic problems, they often find it convenient and neces- sary to delegate subsidiary or ancillary powers to delegates of their choice for carrying out the policy laid down by the Acts as part of the Administra-tive Law.
26. The principle which, therefore, emerges out is that the essential legislative function consists of the determination of the legislative policy and the Legislature cannot abdicate essential legislative function in favour of another. Power to make subsidiary legislation may be entrusted by the Legislature to another body of its choice but the Legislature should, before delegating, enunciate either expressly or by implication, the policy and the principles for the guidance of the delegates. These principles also apply to Taxing Statutes. The effect of these principles is that the delegate which has been authorised to make subsidiary Rules and Regulations has to work within the scope of its authority and cannot widen or constrict the scope of the Act or the policy laid down thereunder. It cannot, in the garb of making Rules, legislate on the field covered by the Act and has to restrict itself to the mode of implementation of the policy and purpose of the Act.