Gurudevdatta VKSSS Maryadit Vs State of Maharashtra AIR 2001 SC 1980

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed as under

"It is a cardinal principle of interpretation of statute that the words of a statute must be understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense and construed according to their grammatical meaning, unless such construction leads to some absurdity or unless there is something in the context or in the object of the statute to suggest to the contrary. The golden rule is that the words of a statute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning."

Dhapubai (Dead) Widow of Gopalji through LRs Vs Ghisalal and others

decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 12.01.11
Whether mere presence of wife in the ceremonies performed by her husband for adoption of child amounted to her consent as contemplated by the proviso to Section 7 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 or not-
The term 'consent' used in the proviso to Section 7 and the explanation appended thereto has not been defined in the Act. Therefore, while interpreting these provisions, the Court shall have to keep in view the legal position obtaining before enactment of the 1956 Act, the object of the new legislation and apply the rule of purposive interpretation...
Unfortunately, all the Courts completely ignored that presence of Dhapubai in the ceremonies of adoption was only as a mute spectator and not as an active participant...
By no stretch of imagination, this could be equated with her active participation in the adoption ceremonies so as to enable the Courts to draw an inference that she had given consent for the adoption of Ghisalal.
adoption of Ghisalal by Gopalji was not valid because her consent had not been obtained as per the mandate of the proviso to Section 7 of the 1956 Act.

RS Nayak Vs AR Antulay, AIR 1984 SC 684,

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed as under, "...If the words of the Statute are clear and unambiguous, it is the plainest duty of the Court to give effect to the natural meaning of the words used in the provision. The question of construction arises only in the event of an ambiguity or the plain meaning of the words used in the Statute would be self defeating.”

Economic Transport Organisation v. M/s. Charan Spinning Mills (P) Ltd, 2010 (2) Scale 427

Supreme Court observed about the construction of document “In this context, it is necessary to remember that the nature of examination of a document may differ with reference to the context in which it is examined. If a document is examined to find out whether adequate stamp duty has been paid under the Stamp Act, it will not be necessary to examine whether it is validly executed or whether it is fraudulent or forged. On the other hand, if a document is being examined in a criminal case in the context of whether an offense of forgery has been committed, the question for examination will be whether it is forged or fraudulent, and the issue of stamp duty or registration will be irrelevant. But if the document is sought to be produced and relied upon in a civil suit, in addition to the question whether it is genuine, or forged, the question whether it is compulsorily registrable or not, and the question whether it bears the proper stamp duty, will become relevant. If the document is examined in the context of a dispute between the parties to the document, the nature of examination will be to find out that rights and obligation of one party vis-à-vis the other party. If in a summary proceedings by a consumer against a service provider, the insurer is added as a co-complainant or if the insurer represents the consumer as a power of attorney, there is no need to examine the nature of rights inter-se between the consumer and his insurer.”