Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

MR. JAGDEV SINGH S/O MR SURAJMAL R/O HOUSE NO.10, SINGHU, NORTH SINGHU VILLAGE, MANDIR WALI GALI NEW DELHI-110040

2. CHOLAMANADALAM INVESTMENT & FINANCE CO. LTD. THROUGH MD/CEO/MANAGER AT PLOT NO.06, PUSA ROAD, KAROL BAGH NEW DELHI-110001 ....NON-APPLICANTS/ RESPONDENTS CORAM:

HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT) HON'BLE JUSTICE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Present: Mr. Kamal Deep (Mob. 9810106684), counsel for the appellant.
None for the respondents.
PER: HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
1. The present appeal has been filed on 03.04.2024 challenging the impugned order dated 30.09.2023 passed in Complaint Case No.76/2019 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal FA/246/2024 CHOLAMANDALAM MS GEN. INS. LTD. VS. MR. JAGDEV SINGH & ANR DOD:24.04.2024 Commission-VIII (Central District), Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006 wherein the complaint was allowed.
(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken or purported to have been done or taken under the Act hereby repealed shall, in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to FA/246/2024 CHOLAMANDALAM MS GEN. INS. LTD. VS. MR. JAGDEV SINGH & ANR DOD:24.04.2024 have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act.
(3) The mention of particular matters in sub-section (2) shall not be held to prejudice or affect the general application of section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 with regard to the effect of repeal."
"28. Of the various rules guiding how a legislation has to be interpreted, one established rule is that unless a contrary intention appears, a legislation is presumed not to be FA/246/2024 CHOLAMANDALAM MS GEN. INS. LTD. VS. MR. JAGDEV SINGH & ANR DOD:24.04.2024 intended to have a retrospective operation. The idea behind the rule is that a current law should govern current activities. Law passed today cannot apply to the events of the past. If we do something today, we do it keeping in view the law of today and in force and not tomorrow's backward adjustment of it. Our belief in the nature of the law is founded on the bedrock that every human being is entitled to arrange his affairs by relying on the existing law and should not find that his plans have been retrospectively upset. This principle of law is known as lex prospicit non respicit: law looks forward not backward. As was observed in Phillips v. Eyre [Phillips v. Eyre, (1870) LR 6 QB 1] , a retrospective legislation is contrary to the general principle that legislation by which the conduct of mankind is to be regulated when introduced for the first time to deal with future acts ought not to change the character of past transactions carried on upon the faith of the then existing law.