MEANING OF GOLDEN RULE
Golden Rule is the modification of Literal/Grammatical
Rule. Ordinarily the court must find out the
intention of the legislature from the words used in
the statute by giving them their natural meaning.
That should be prima facie. However, if the same
leads to absurdity, repugnance, inconvenience,
hardship, injustice or evasion, the court must
modify the meaning to such an extent and no
further, as would prevent such a consequence. This
rule is to solve all problems and is therefore known
as the Golden Rule.
CASE LAWS THAT WE ARE GOING TO DISCUSS
1. Bedford Vs. Bedford (Application in Wider Sense).
2. Wright Vs. Ford Motor Co (Application in Narrow
Sense).
3. Lee Vs. Knapp
4. Karnail Singh Vs. Smt. Mohindra Kaur
5. Tirart Singh vs. Bachittar Singh
6. State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Azad Bharat Finance
Co.
7. State of Punjab Vs. Q.J. Begum
8. Mangu Singh Vs. The Election Tribunal
BEDFORD VS. BEDFORD
Re Sigsworth: Bedford Vs. Bedford:1935 THE WORD USED UNDER
SECTION 46 i.e. ‘ISSUE’
SON SECTION 46- HAS ONLY ONE
MURDERED ADMINISTRATION SUCCESSION TO MEANING, THAT SON/HIS
MOTHER OF ESTATES ACT REAL AND DESCENDANTS WOULD
AND THEN PERSONAL GET IT
COMMITED ESTATE ON
SUICIDE INTESTACY
MOTHER’S THE COURT HELD THAT
RELATIVES? NO ONE SHOULD
OR PROFIT FROM A CRIME,
WHO WILL DECIDED YHE AND SO USED THE
GET PROPERTY IN GOLDEN RULE TO
MOTHER’S FAVOUR OF THE PREVENT AN
PROPERTY SON’S MOTHER’S UNDESIRABLE RESULT
DESCENDANTS RELATIVE EVEN THOUGH THERE
WAS ONLY ONE
MEANING OF THE WORD
“ISSUE”.
WRIGHT VS. FORD MOTOR CO. LTD
LEE VS. KNAPP(1967)
KARNAIL SINGH VS.
[Link] KAUR
TIRART SINGH VS. BACHITTAR SINGH
MANGU SINGH VS. THE ELECTION TRIBUNAL
IT WAS HELD BY THE
COURT THAT
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS AZAD
BHARAT FINANCE CO.
HELD: The word ‘shall’ is not always mandatory; it depends upon the context in which
the word occurs and the other circumstances.
MANGU SINGH VS. THE ELECTION TRIBUNAL