Textual Interpretation Of Statute Should Match With Contextual Interpretation and the statute must be read as a whole

In RENAISSANCE HOTEL HOLDINGS INC. Vs B. VIJAYA SAI AND OTHERS, the Supreme Court while elaborating on the issue of infringement of trademark and passing off issues and disagreeing with the judgment of the Karnataka High Court observed that there are  two important principles of interpretation. The first one being of textual and contextual interpretation. 

Referring to the judgment in Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. and Others, the Court said that one  may well say if the text is the texture, context is  what gives the colour. Neither can be ignored. Both  are important. It is thus trite law that while interpreting the provisions of a statute, it is necessary that the textual interpretation should be matched with the contextual one. The Act must be looked at as a whole and it must be discovered what each section, each clause, each phrase and each word is meant and designed to say as to fit into the scheme of the entire Act. No part of a statute and no word of a statute can be construed in isolation. Statutes have to be construed so that every word has a place and everything is in its place. As already discussed hereinabove, the said Act has been enacted by the legislature taking into consideration the increased globalization of trade and industry, the need to encourage investment flows and transfer of technology, and the need for simplification and harmonization of trade mark management systems. One of the purposes for which the said Act has been enacted is prohibiting the use of someone else’s trade mark as a part of the corporate name or the name of business concern. If the entire scheme of the Act is construed as a whole, it provides for the rights conferred by registration and the right to sue for infringement of the registered trade mark by its proprietor. The legislative scheme as enacted under the said statute elaborately provides for the eventualities in which a proprietor of the registered trade mark can bring an action for infringement of the trade mark and the limits on effect of the registered trade mark. By picking up a part of the provisions in sub­section (4) of Section 29 of the said Act and a part of the provision in sub­section (1) of Section 30 of the said Act and giving it a textual meaning without considering the context in which the said provisions have to be construed, in our view, would not be permissible.

The Court also held that a part of a section cannot be read in isolation. As laid down in the case of Balasinor Nagrik Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Babubhai Shankerlal Pandya and Others and in Kalawatibai v. Soiryabai, it is an elementary rule that construction of a  section is to be made of all parts together. It is not permissible to omit any part of it. For, the principle that the statute must be read as a whole is equally applicable to different parts of the same section.