Q. 1 Does the intent of the contract is different from intent of legislation?

Support your
answer with the help of two case laws and two illustrations. (In Maximum 5 lines)
A.1 Intent of contract is, in a way different from intent of legislation. The intent of contract
involves the joint intent of both parties and the joint intent of the parties is to be discovered
from the entirety of the contract and the circumstances surrounding its formation. The same
has been quoted in the case of DLF Universal Ltd. v. Director, T. and C. Planning
Department Haryana. The Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Industrial Development v
Subhash Sindhi, has stated that the intent of the agreement has to be traced in joint intent of
both parties. Where there is some ambiguity as to the words in a provision of law, the
judiciary has to seek intention of legislature. Therefore, the intent of both/all the parties
doesn’t really need to be considered.

Q. 2 Give two illustrations wherein courts have gathered sententia legis through inferences.
A.2 Sometime the courts go into intention of parliament on the basis of judicial thinking or
assumptions based on common sense without resorting to any matter.
A constitution bench in the case of Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab acknowledges this
function of presumption. It reiterates the established principle that “presumption of innocence
is the general law of the land as every man is presumed be innocent unless proven to be
guilty”
Another landmark case, wherein the court gathered sententia legis through inferences was
that of Keshavlal Khemchand And Sons v. Union of India. Section 2(1)(o) of the SARFESI
Act 2002 was under challenge. In 2004 a modified criterion for NPA was incorporated. This
new definition of NPA was questioned on the grounds of Art. 14. The court in the said case,
was not sure about the intention of parliament but has regardless, drawn an inference as it did
not have any credible source. The reason is either the parliamentary debate has not been
produced by parties in support of their contentions or the judiciary could not enquire
regarding parliamentary debates due to lack of research inputs at structural level.
Q.3 Explain the difference between Interpretation and Construction with the help of
minimum two examples.
A.3 Interpretation implies the identification of true sense of the statute. Construction means
drawing inferences about the subject, that are above the direct expression of text. The
distinction between construction and intention is not that clear cut though. Where language is
equivocal, the decision whether the wording was ‘meant’ to refer to the situation before the
court, which no one may have contemplated at the time of passing of the statute, inevitably
imports a measure of ‘construction.’ In such cases it is difficult to see where ‘interpretation’
leaves off and ‘construction’ begins. When it comes to the legal exposition of the statute, act
or any agreement however, it is interpretation which precedes construction.
“Interpretation involves ascertaining the meaning of contractual words; construction refers to
deciding their legal effect.” Fashion Fabrics of Iowa v. Retail Investment Corporation (266
N.W. 2d 25 (Iowa 1978).
“The very concept of interpretation connotes the introduction of elememts which are
necessarily extrinsic to the words of the statute. Though the words ‘interpretation’ and
‘construction’ are used interchangebly, the idea is somewhat different.” CWT v H Begum
(AIR 1989 SC 1024)