Patent ambiguity - Indian Laws - General

Patent ambiguity A patent ambiguity is explained in the following terms in Starkie on Evidence [Starkie, T., A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, 7th Edition, 1829, William Benning, London] : By patent ambiguity must be understood an ambiguity inherent in the words, and incapable of being dispelled, either by any legal Rules of construction applied to the instrument itself, or by evidence showing that terms in themselves unmeaning or unintelligible are capable of receiving a known conventional meaning, the great principle on which the Rule is founded is that the intention of parties, should be construed, not by vague evidence of their intentions independently of the expressions which they have thought fit to use, but by the expression themselves. Now, those expressions which are incapable of any legal construction and interpretation by the Rules of art are either so because they are in themselves unintelligible, or because, being intelligible, they exhibit a plain and obvious uncertainty. In the first instance, the case admits of two varieties; the terms though at first sight unintelligible, may yet be capable of having a meaning annexed to them by extrinsic evidence, just as if they were written in a foreign language, as when mercantile terms are used which amongst mercantile men bear a distinct and definite meaning, although others do not comprehend them; the terms used may, on the other hand, be capable of no distinct and definite interpretation. Now, it is evident that to give effect to an instrument, the terms of which, though apparently ambiguous are capable of having a distinct and definite meaning annexed to them is no violation of the general principle, for, in such a case, effect is given, not to any loose conjecture as to the intent and meaning of the party, but to the expressed meaning and that, on the other hand, where either the terms used are incapable of any certain and definite meaning, or, being in themselves intelligible, exhibit plain and obvious uncertainty, and are equally capable of different applications, to give an effect to them by extrinsic evidence as to the intention of the party would be to make the supposed intention operate independently of any definite expression of such intention. By patent ambiguity, therefore, must be understood an inherent ambiguity, which cannot be removed, either by the ordinary Rules of legal construction or by the application of extrinsic and explanatory evidence, showing that expressions, prima facie, unintelligible, are yet capable of conveying a certain and definite meaning. ANGLO AMERICAN METALLURGICAL COAL PTY. LTD. VERSUS MMTC LTD. - 2020 (12) TMI 1372 - SUPREME COURT