Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 33 (1.77 seconds)
Documents citing Amireddi Rajagopala Rao And Others vs Amireddi Sitharamamma And Others on 18 February, 1965

Sri Santhosh J vs Sri V Narasimha Murthy on 18 February, 2019

creates a new obligation or imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability in respect of transactions already past, must be presumed to be intended not to have a retrospective effect."(See Amireddi Rajagopala Rao v. Amireddi Sitharamamma.) As a logical corollary of the general rule, that retrospective operation is not taken to be intended unless that intention is manifested by express words or necessary implication, there is a subordinate rule to the effect that a statute or a section in it is not to be construed so as to have larger retrospective operation than its language renders necessary.
Karnataka High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gurdaspur Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd vs Food Corporation Of India And Anr on 6 September, 2019

"Every statute, it has been said", observed Lopes, L.J., "which takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation or imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability in respect of transactions already past, must be presumed to be intended not to have a retrospective effect." (See Amireddi Raja Gopala Rao v. Amireddi Sitharamamma, 1965 (3) SCR 122).
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - R N Raina - Full Document

Indocil Silicons Pvt Ltd vs Union Of India on 27 May, 2022

In Amireddi Raja Gopala Rao v. Amireddi Sitharamamma [AI R 1965 SC 1970 : (1965) 3 SCR 122), a Constitution Bench was concerned with the issue as to whether the rights of maintenance of illegitimate sons of a Sudra as available under the Mitakshara School of Hindu law were affected by introduction of Sections 4, 21 and 22 of the Hindu Ado ptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The Court held that they were not, and observed in para 7 as follows : (AIR p . 1973) " 7. ... a statute should be interpreted, if possible, so as to respect vested rights, [ Ed.: The words between asterisks are found in AIR but not in SCR.] and if the words are open to another construction, such a construction should never be adopted [Ed.:
Karnataka High Court Cites 97 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Prakash vs Pushpa Vani on 23 December, 2003

15. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Amireddi Raja Gopala Rao v. Amireddi Sitharamamma, , held that the claim of an Avaruddha Stree or woman kept in concubinage for maintenance for her lifetime against the estate of her paramour rested on the express text of Mitakshara, Ch.2; S.I, v. 27 and 28 read with V.7 and approved the Full Bench decision of Bombay High Court in Akku Prahlad v. Ganesh Prahlad, ILR 1945 Bom. 216 = AIR 1945 Bom. 217 (FB), wherein it was held 'that a married woman who left her husband and lived with paramour as his permanently kept mistress could claim the status of an Avaruddha Stree by remaining faithful to her paramour, though the connection was adulterous, and was entitled to maintenance from the estate of the paramour so long as she preserved her sexual fidelity to him."
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 37 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next