Explain the rule of 'beneficial construction' while interpreting the statute quoting

(2) Expressio Unius Exclusio Alterius. This principle, 'Expressio Unius Exclusio Alterius' states that express mention of one is the exclusion of other e.g., if statute refers to 'lands, house and coal-mines', other mines except coal mines are excluded and, 'other mines' cannot be made to fall within the general term 'lands'-Gilmore Vs. Baker-Carr (1962) 1 WLR 1165. In Kemka and Co. Vs. State of Maharashtra-1975(2) see 22, this rule was applied. In this case, the first part of sub-section talked of enforcement of tax payable under the eST Act while second part of sub-section talked about tax and penalties payable under the eST Act. It was held that the first part of sub-section was not applicable for 'penalties' as the word has been specifically excluded in the first part. By expressly mentioning only 'taxes', it may be regarded as silently excluding 'penalties' from its application.
However, this maxim is a merely auxiliary rule and should be applied with great caution. It is a 'valuable servant but dangerous master'. In Parbhani Transport Vs. RT A-AIR 1960 se 801, it was said that this principle can be used only for ascertaining intention of legislature. If the statutory language is plain and clear, there is 1<0 scope for applying this rule.
Q 3. Explain the rule of 'beneficial construction' while interpreting the statute quoting
an example [CA (Final) May, 2000]
.9l.11.5 See Il11der Ans. to Q. 2.

Q4fixplain the principle of grammatical interpretation vis-a-vis logical interpretation ~cially in the context that the duty of the Court is to administer the law as it stands and not to find out whether the law is just or reasonable.

[C.A. (Final) Nov.2001]
.9l.11.5. Interpretation may be either grammatical or logical. Grammatical interpretation concerns itself exclusively with the verbal expression of law. It does not go beyond the letter of the law. Logical interpreFiirion onthe other hand, seeks more satisfactory evidence ofthe true intention of the legislature. In all ordinary cases; the grammatical interpretation is the sole form allowable. rThe court cannot take from or add to or modify the letter of the law. However, where the letter of the law is logically defective on account of ambiguity, inconsistency or incompleteness, the court is under a duty to travel beyond the letter of law so as to determine from the other sources, the true intentions of the legislature. Further, a statute is enforceable at law, however, unreasonable it may be. The duty of the court is to administer the law as it stands. It is not within its jurisdiction to see whether the law is just or unreasonable. However, if there are two possible constructions of a clause, one a mere mechanical construction based on the rules of grammar and the other which emerges from the setting in which the clause appears and the circumstances in which it came to be enacted and also the words used therein, the courts may prefer the second construction which though may not be literal may be a better one. (Arora vs. State of UP)
Q 5. How do the following help in Interpretation/Construction of Statutes? (a) Long Title
(b) Preamble
(e) Heading and Title of a Chapter
(d) Marginal notes
(e) Definitional Sections/Clauses