https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168901 A general statute binds the State unless express words or necessary implication exclude it. The Court held that the pre-Constitution Crown exemption rule was only a canon of construction, not "law in force" under Article 372, and therefore did not survive as a governing principle for interpreting Indian statutes. Applying that approach to the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, section 218 imposed the licensing obligation on the State because it used general language and contained no express exemption. Section 541 and the related penal provisions did not create a necessary implication of exclusion, so the statutory scheme left the State subject to the licence requirement. en-us Wed, 07 Dec 1966 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Apr 2015 15:34:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168901 A general statute binds the State unless express words or necessary implication exclude it. The Court held that the pre-Constitution Crown exemption rule was only a canon of construction, not "law in force" under Article 372, and therefore did not survive as a governing principle for interpreting Indian statutes. Applying that approach to the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, section 218 imposed the licensing obligation on the State because it used general language and contained no express exemption. Section 541 and the related penal provisions did not create a necessary implication of exclusion, so the statutory scheme left the State subject to the licence requirement. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 07 Dec 1966 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168901