Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 94 (1.74 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India And Another Etc. Etc vs Zora Singh Etc. Etc on 22 November, 1991

K.S. Paripoornan vs State Of Kerala on 12 September, 1994

111. In respect of acquisition proceedings initiated prior to the date of commencement of the amending Act 68 of 1984, the payment of the additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Act will be restricted to matters referred to in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the said amending Act. Union of India v. Zora Singh7 insofar as it holds that 8 (1992) 1 SCC 684 7 (1992) 1 SCC 673 6 (1990) 1 SCC 277 * Ed.: Signed by all the five Hon'ble Judges Constituting the Bench 663 the said amount is payable in all cases where the reference was pending before the reference Court on 24-9-1984, irrespective of the date on which the award was made by the Collector, does not lay down the correct law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 64 - Cited by 262 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

K.S. Paripoornan vs State Of Kerala on 12 September, 1994

111. In respect of acquisition proceedings initiated prior to the date of commencement of the amending Act 68 of 1984, the payment of the additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Act will be restricted to matters referred to in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the said amending Act. Union of India v. Zora Singh7 insofar as it holds that 8 (1992) 1 SCC 684 7 (1992) 1 SCC 673 6 (1990) 1 SCC 277 * Ed.: Signed by all the five Hon'ble Judges Constituting the Bench 663 the said amount is payable in all cases where the reference was pending before the reference Court on 24-9-1984, irrespective of the date on which the award was made by the Collector, does not lay down the correct law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 64 - Cited by 118 - R M Sahai - Full Document

Bhikabhai vs 3Rd

In rendering the majority judgment their Lordship held that the decision of this Court in Union of India vs. Zora Singh, (1992) 1 SCC 673, is not correct and in paragraph 70 of the judgment the learned Judges held that the Parliament has given a clear indication of its intention in Section 30 (1), which was a transitional provision. The learned Judges held that since a clear intention has been given in Section 30(1), there is no scope for any speculation about the parliamentary intention by reading Section 23(1A) in isolation from Section 30(1) of the Act. [See SCC para
Gujarat High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - J Patel - Full Document

Nexus Feeds Ltd vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income ... on 8 March, 2022

In Zora Singh (supra) it was held that payment of additional amount payable at the rate of 12% p.a on the market value under Sub-Section (1A) inserted in Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 had to be ordered in every case where the reference was pending before the reference Court on the date of commencement of the Amending Act. Constitution Bench noted that a statute dealing with substantive rights differs from a statute which relates to procedure or evidence or is declaratory in nature inasmuch as while the statute dealing with substantive rights is prima facie prospective unless it is 12 (1994) 5 SCC 593 13 (1992) 1 SCC 673 66 expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect, a statute concerned mainly with matters of procedure or evidence or which is declaratory in nature has to be construed as retrospective unless there is a clear indication that such was not the intention of the legislature. A statute is regarded retrospective if it operates on cases or facts coming into existence before its commencement in the sense that it affects the character or consequences of transactions previously entered into or of other past conduct. It was further held the above principles are equally applicable to amendatory statutes. Like original statutes they will not be given retrospective construction unless the language clearly makes such construction necessary. There is a presumption that an amendment shall operate prospectively. The Constitution Bench held as follows:
Telangana High Court Cites 93 - Cited by 0 - C Sumalatha - Full Document

Nexus Feeds Ltd vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income ... on 8 March, 2022

In Zora Singh (supra) it was held that payment of additional amount payable at the rate of 12% p.a on the market value under Sub-Section (1A) inserted in Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 had to be ordered in every case where the reference was pending before the reference Court on the date of commencement of the Amending Act. Constitution Bench noted that a statute dealing with substantive rights differs from a statute which relates to procedure or evidence or is declaratory in nature inasmuch as while the statute dealing with substantive rights is prima facie prospective unless it is 12 (1994) 5 SCC 593 13 (1992) 1 SCC 673 66 expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect, a statute concerned mainly with matters of procedure or evidence or which is declaratory in nature has to be construed as retrospective unless there is a clear indication that such was not the intention of the legislature. A statute is regarded retrospective if it operates on cases or facts coming into existence before its commencement in the sense that it affects the character or consequences of transactions previously entered into or of other past conduct. It was further held the above principles are equally applicable to amendatory statutes. Like original statutes they will not be given retrospective construction unless the language clearly makes such construction necessary. There is a presumption that an amendment shall operate prospectively. The Constitution Bench held as follows:
Telangana High Court Cites 93 - Cited by 0 - C Sumalatha - Full Document

Nexus Feeds Ltd vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income ... on 8 March, 2022

In Zora Singh (supra) it was held that payment of additional amount payable at the rate of 12% p.a on the market value under Sub-Section (1A) inserted in Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 had to be ordered in every case where the reference was pending before the reference Court on the date of commencement of the Amending Act. Constitution Bench noted that a statute dealing with substantive rights differs from a statute which relates to procedure or evidence or is declaratory in nature inasmuch as while the statute dealing with substantive rights is prima facie prospective unless it is 12 (1994) 5 SCC 593 13 (1992) 1 SCC 673 66 expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect, a statute concerned mainly with matters of procedure or evidence or which is declaratory in nature has to be construed as retrospective unless there is a clear indication that such was not the intention of the legislature. A statute is regarded retrospective if it operates on cases or facts coming into existence before its commencement in the sense that it affects the character or consequences of transactions previously entered into or of other past conduct. It was further held the above principles are equally applicable to amendatory statutes. Like original statutes they will not be given retrospective construction unless the language clearly makes such construction necessary. There is a presumption that an amendment shall operate prospectively. The Constitution Bench held as follows:
Telangana High Court Cites 94 - Cited by 0 - C Sumalatha - Full Document

Nexus Feeds Ltd vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income ... on 8 March, 2022

In Zora Singh (supra) it was held that payment of additional amount payable at the rate of 12% p.a on the market value under Sub-Section (1A) inserted in Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 had to be ordered in every case where the reference was pending before the reference Court on the date of commencement of the Amending Act. Constitution Bench noted that a statute dealing with substantive rights differs from a statute which relates to procedure or evidence or is declaratory in nature inasmuch as while the statute dealing with substantive rights is prima facie prospective unless it is 12 (1994) 5 SCC 593 13 (1992) 1 SCC 673 66 expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect, a statute concerned mainly with matters of procedure or evidence or which is declaratory in nature has to be construed as retrospective unless there is a clear indication that such was not the intention of the legislature. A statute is regarded retrospective if it operates on cases or facts coming into existence before its commencement in the sense that it affects the character or consequences of transactions previously entered into or of other past conduct. It was further held the above principles are equally applicable to amendatory statutes. Like original statutes they will not be given retrospective construction unless the language clearly makes such construction necessary. There is a presumption that an amendment shall operate prospectively. The Constitution Bench held as follows:
Telangana High Court Cites 94 - Cited by 0 - C Sumalatha - Full Document

Nexus Feeds Ltd vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income ... on 8 March, 2022

In Zora Singh (supra) it was held that payment of additional amount payable at the rate of 12% p.a on the market value under Sub-Section (1A) inserted in Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 had to be ordered in every case where the reference was pending before the reference Court on the date of commencement of the Amending Act. Constitution Bench noted that a statute dealing with substantive rights differs from a statute which relates to procedure or evidence or is declaratory in nature inasmuch as while the statute dealing with substantive rights is prima facie prospective unless it is 12 (1994) 5 SCC 593 13 (1992) 1 SCC 673 66 expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect, a statute concerned mainly with matters of procedure or evidence or which is declaratory in nature has to be construed as retrospective unless there is a clear indication that such was not the intention of the legislature. A statute is regarded retrospective if it operates on cases or facts coming into existence before its commencement in the sense that it affects the character or consequences of transactions previously entered into or of other past conduct. It was further held the above principles are equally applicable to amendatory statutes. Like original statutes they will not be given retrospective construction unless the language clearly makes such construction necessary. There is a presumption that an amendment shall operate prospectively. The Constitution Bench held as follows:
Telangana High Court Cites 94 - Cited by 0 - C Sumalatha - Full Document

Nexus Feeds Ltd, vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income ... on 8 March, 2022

In Zora Singh (supra) it was held that payment of additional amount payable at the rate of 12% p.a on the market value under Sub-Section (1A) inserted in Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 had to be ordered in every case where the reference was pending before the reference Court on the date of commencement of the Amending Act. Constitution Bench noted that a statute dealing with substantive rights differs from a statute which relates to procedure or evidence or is declaratory in nature inasmuch as while the statute dealing with substantive rights is prima facie prospective unless it is 12 (1994) 5 SCC 593 13 (1992) 1 SCC 673 66 expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect, a statute concerned mainly with matters of procedure or evidence or which is declaratory in nature has to be construed as retrospective unless there is a clear indication that such was not the intention of the legislature. A statute is regarded retrospective if it operates on cases or facts coming into existence before its commencement in the sense that it affects the character or consequences of transactions previously entered into or of other past conduct. It was further held the above principles are equally applicable to amendatory statutes. Like original statutes they will not be given retrospective construction unless the language clearly makes such construction necessary. There is a presumption that an amendment shall operate prospectively. The Constitution Bench held as follows:
Telangana High Court Cites 93 - Cited by 0 - C Sumalatha - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next