https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168551 General words in a statute must be read in light of the enactment's object, preamble and scheme, and not in a way that defeats its legislative purpose. Applying that approach, the SC held that the Orissa Forest Produce (Control of Trade) Act, 1981 and the notification issued under it were confined to forest produce grown on private holdings, where the State was intended to act as exclusive purchaser. They did not extend to sal seeds and other produce already owned by the State in Government forests, so existing collection and purchase contracts could not be treated as rescinded on that basis. The appeals therefore succeeded and the declaration in favour of the appellants was sustained. en-us Thu, 07 May 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Mar 2015 17:27:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168551 General words in a statute must be read in light of the enactment's object, preamble and scheme, and not in a way that defeats its legislative purpose. Applying that approach, the SC held that the Orissa Forest Produce (Control of Trade) Act, 1981 and the notification issued under it were confined to forest produce grown on private holdings, where the State was intended to act as exclusive purchaser. They did not extend to sal seeds and other produce already owned by the State in Government forests, so existing collection and purchase contracts could not be treated as rescinded on that basis. The appeals therefore succeeded and the declaration in favour of the appellants was sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 07 May 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168551