C.N. Paramsivan & Anr. vs. Sunrise Plaza TR. Partner & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 154 of 2013, (Arising
out of S.L.P. (C) No.21765 of 2010), decided on 9th January, 2013
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held:
“Legislation by incorporation is a device to which legislatures often
take resort for the sake of convenience. The phenomenon is widely prevalent and
has been the subject matter of judicial pronouncements by Courts in this
country as much as Courts abroad. Justice G.P. Singh in his celebrated work on
Principles of Statutory Interpretation has explained the concept in the
following words:
“Incorporation of an earlier Act into a
later Act is a legislative device adopted for the sake of convenience in order
to avoid verbatim reproduction of the provisions of the earlier Act into the
later. When an earlier Act or certain of its provisions are incorporated by
reference into a later Act, the provisions so incorporated become part and
parcel of the later Act as if they had been ‘bodily transposed into it. The
effect of incorporation is admirably stated by LORD ESHER, M.R.: ‘If a
subsequent Act brings into itself by reference some of the clauses of a former
Act, the legal effect of that, as has often been held, is to write those
sections into the new Act as if they had been actually written in it with the
pen, or printed in it. Even though only
particular sections of an earlier Act are incorporated into later, in
construing the incorporated sections it may be at times necessary and
permissible to refer to other parts of the earlier statute which are not
incorporated. As was stated by LORD BLACKBURN: “When a single section of an Act
of Parliament is introduced into another Act, I think it must be read in the
sense it bore in the original Act from which it was taken, and that
consequently it is perfectly legitimate to refer to all the rest of that Act in
order to ascertain what the section meant, though those other sections are not
incorporated in the new Act.” [Para 17]
The Court referred following case
laws:
Ram Kirpal Bhagat and Ors. v.
State of Bihar (1969) 3 SCC 471 this Court examined the effect of bringing into
an Act the provisions of an earlier Act and held that the legislation by
incorporation of the provisions of an earlier Act into a subsequent Act is that
the provisions so incorporated are treated to have been incorporated in the
subsequent legislation for the first time.
This Court observed:
“The effect of
bringing into an Act the provisions of an earlier Act is to introduce the
incorporated Sections of the earlier Act into the subsequent Act as if those
provisions have been enacted in it for the first time. The nature of such a
piece of legislation was explained by Lord Esher M. R. in Re Wood’s Estate
[1881] 31 Ch. D.607 that “if some clauses of a former Act were brought into the
subsequent Act the legal effect was to write those Sections into the new Act
just as if they had been written in it with the pen”
Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v.
Union of India and Anr. (1979) 2 SCC 529 where this Court held that once the
incorporation is made, the provisions incorporated become an integral part of
the statute in which it is transposed and thereafter there is no need to refer
to the statute from which the incorporation is made and any subsequent
amendment made in it has no effect on the incorporating statute. The following passage
is in this regard apposite:
“The effect of
incorporation is as if the provisions were written out in the incorporating
statute and were a part of it. Legislation by incorporation is a common
legislative device employed by the legislature, where the legislature for
convenience of drafting incorporates provisions from an existing statue by
reference to that statute instead of setting out for itself at length the
provisions which it desires to adopt. Once the incorporation is made, the
provision incorporated becomes an integral part of the statute in which it is
transposed and thereafter there is no need to refer to the statute from which
the incorporation is made and any subsequent amendment made in it has no effect
on the incorporating statute.”
The court also noted the
following case laws:
Onkarlal Nandlal v. Rajasthan and
Anr. (1985) 4 SCC 404
Mary Roy and Ors. v. State of
Kerala and Ors. (1986) 2 SCC 209
Nagpur Improvement Trust v.
Vasantrao and Ors. and Jaswantibai and Ors. (2002)
7 SCC 657
M/s Surana Steels Pvt. Ltd. v.
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.
(1999) 4 SCC 306
To see full text follow the link: