AIR 1991 SUPREME COURT 1538 ::1991 AIR SCW 1467 ::1991 (2) UJ (SC) 337 ::1991 (3) SCC 442 ::1992 (1) Bom CR 290 ::1991 (2) GujLR 1331 ::1991 (1) GujLH 24 ::(1991) 2 SCR 802 (SC) ::(1991) 2 JT 604 (SC)

Supreme Court Of India

(From : Gujarat)

Hon'ble Judge(s): Kuldip Singh, K. Ramaswamy , JJ

(A) Interpretation of Statutes , Proviso— Clear and unambiguous language of main enactment - Proviso can have no repercussion on interpretation of main enactment so as to exclude from it, by implication what clearly falls within its express terms. It is a cardinal rule of interpretation that a proviso to a particular provision of a statute only embraces the field, which is covered by the main provision. It carves out an exception to the main provision to which it has been enacted by the proviso and to no other. The proper function of a proviso is to except and deal with a case which would otherwise fall within the general language of the main enactment, and its effect is to confine to that case. Where the language of the main enactment is explicit and unambiguous, the proviso can have no repercussion on the interpretation of the main enactment, so as to exclude from it, by implication what clearly falls within its express terms. The scope of the proviso, therefore, is to carve out an exception to the main enactment and it excludes something which otherwise would have been within the rule. It has to operate in the same field and if the language of the main enactment is clear, the proviso cannot be torn apart from the main enactment nor can it be used to nullify by implication what the enactment clearly says nor set at naught the real object of the main enactm....