B S BALI Vs. BATALIA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In deciding Civil Suit No. 3/D of 1952 the Tribunal has found that Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 2 (6) of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as the Act, must be read conjunctively. In the opinion of the Tribunal to bring a case under Section 2 (6) (c) of the Act, the pecuniary liability must have been incurred by tne debtor before he came to reside in any area now forming part of India.

(2.) From the order passed by the Tribunal, Shri B. S. Bali appeals under Section 40 of the Act.

(3.) In interpreting statute Judge should not infer an intention contrary to the literal meaning of the words of the statute, unless the context, or the consequences which would ensue from a literal interpretation, justify the inference that the Legislature has not expressed something which it intended to express, or unless such interpretation eads to any manifest absurdity or repugnance, with this superadded qualification that the ab-surdity or repugnance must be such as manifest-ed itself to the mind of the law-maker, and not such as may appear to be so to the Tribunal interpreting the statute. In this connection observations of Lord Field in -- 'Cox v. Hades', (1890) 15 AC 506 CA) may be seen.