Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.35 seconds)Zile Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 7 October, 2004
It is for this reason that the authorities have
corrected the typographical error that had crept into the
Ordinance by issuing the amendment which is
apparently clarificatory in nature and would therefore
come into force from the date of the original Ordinance
as it satisfies all the four tests laid down by the Supreme
Court in the case of Zile Singh (supra).
National Agricultural Co-Operative ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 25 March, 2003
In a recent decision of this Court in
National Agricultural Coop. Marketing
Federation of India Ltd. v. Union of India [(2003)
5 SCC 23], it has been held
that there is no fixed formula for the
expression of legislative intent to give
retrospectivity to an enactment. Every
legislation whether prospective or retrospective
has to be subjected to the question of legislative
competence. The retrospectivity is liable to be
decided on a few touchstones such as: (i) the
words used must expressly provide or clearly
imply retrospective operation; (ii) the
retrospectivity must be reasonable and not
excessive or harsh, otherwise it runs the risk of
being struck down as unconstitutional; (iii)
7
W. P. No. 23667/2018
where the legislation is introduced to overcome
a judicial decision, the power cannot be used to
subvert the decision without removing the
statutory basis of the decision. There is no fixed
formula for the expression of legislative intent
to give retrospectivity to an enactment. A
validating clause coupled with a substantive
statutory change is only one of the methods to
leave actions unsustainable under the
unamended statute, undisturbed. Consequently,
the absence of a validating clause would not by
itself affect the retrospective operation of the
statutory provision, if such retrospectivity is
otherwise apparent.
Raghvendra Kumar Shrivastava vs Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya ... on 18 January, 2011
It is, however, observed that the Ordinance in
question was promulgated and brought into force by the
authorities in the year 2008-09 and thereafter, in view
of the orders passed by this Court in cases of Ankit
Shrivastava (supra) and Ku. Urmila Maravi (supra),
the University has assessed the students by determining
their aggregate marks on yearly basis. It is an admitted
fact that even in the case of the petitioner, the said
system was adopted for all previous years.
The Bengal Immunity Company Limited vs The State Of Bihar And Others on 4 December, 1954
In Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of
Bihar [(1955) 2 SCR 603], Heydon's case [(1584)
3 Co Rep 7a] was cited with approval.
Allied Motors (P) Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi on 10 March, 1997
In Allied Motors (P) Ltd. v. CIT, (1997) 3
SCC 472, certain unintended consequences
flowed from a provision enacted by Parliament.
There was an obvious omission. In order to cure
the defect, a proviso was sought to be
introduced through an amendment. The Court
held that literal construction was liable to be
avoided if it defeated the manifest object and
purpose of the Act. The rule of reasonable
interpretation should apply.
Shyam Sunder And Others vs Ram Kumar And Another on 31 July, 2001
19. The Constitution Bench in Shyam Sunder
v. Ram Kumar [(2001) 8 SCC 24], has held: (SCC
p.49, para 39)
"Ordinarily when an enactment declares
the previous law, it requires to be given
retroactive effect. The function of a declaratory
statute is to supply an omission or to explain a
previous statute and when such an Act is
passed, it comes into effect when the previous
enactment was passed. The legislative power to
enact law includes the power to declare what
was the previous law and when such a
declaratory Act is passed, invariably it has been
held to be retrospective. Mere absence of use of
word 'declaration' in an Act explaining what was
the law before may not appear to be a
declaratory Act but if the Court finds an Act as
declaratory or explanatory, it has to be
construed as retrospective." (p. 2487).
Ku. Urmila Maravi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 10 January, 2014
It is, however, observed that the Ordinance in
question was promulgated and brought into force by the
authorities in the year 2008-09 and thereafter, in view
of the orders passed by this Court in cases of Ankit
Shrivastava (supra) and Ku. Urmila Maravi (supra),
the University has assessed the students by determining
their aggregate marks on yearly basis. It is an admitted
fact that even in the case of the petitioner, the said
system was adopted for all previous years.
1