Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

27. In , the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mithtiesh Kumari v. Prem Behari Khare, was overruled in so far as it held section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act (45 of 1988} to be declaratory enactment.

28. Thus on a care full analysis of the principles enunciated in the decisions cited on behalf of the parties on the question of retrospectively of an Act, the essence may be summed up as follows :

Legislature is competent to legislate both prospectively and retrospectively. There is, however, a presumption against retrospectivity. The rule against the retrospective effect of statute is not a rigid or inflexible rule but is one to be applied always in the light of the language of the statute and the subject matter with which the statute is dealing. A statute is retrospective which lakes away or impairs any vested right acquired under exiling laws or creates a new obligation or imposes a new duly or attaches a new disability in respect to transacllons or considerations already past. A relrospecllve operations is not to be given to a statute so as lo Impair an existing right or a obligation otherwise than as regards matter of procedure unless that effect cannot be avoided wilhout doing violence to the language of the enactment. No person has a vested right in any course of procedure and the presumption against retrospective construction has no application to enactments which deal with the procedural law and not substantive law. If a slalute is in its nature a declaratory Act, the presumption against retrospectlvlty is inapplicable. The rule against retrospective operation is a presumption only and as such it may be overcome not only by express words in the Act but also by circumstances sufficiently strong to displace it. A repeal may be express or implied. If the provisions of a later enactment are so inconsistent with or repugnant with the provisions of an earlier one that the two cannot stand together, the earlier enactment can be said to have been repealed by Implication. There is no real distinction in essence between a repeal and an amendment.