Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.32 seconds)The Customs Act, 1962
National Agricultural Co-Operative ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 25 March, 2003
In a recent decision of this Court in National Agricultural
Cooperative Marketing Federation of India Ltd. And Another
Vs. Union of India and Others, (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;
Shyam Sunder And Others vs Ram Kumar And Another on 31 July, 2001
The Constitution Bench in Shyam Sunder & Ors. Vs. Ram
Kumar & Anr., (2001) 8 SCC 24, has held ___ "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 explain 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).
The Bengal Immunity Company Limited vs The State Of Bihar And Others on 4 December, 1954
In The Bengal Immunity Company Ltd. Vs. The State of
Bihar & Ors., [1955] 2 SCR 603, Heydon's case (3 Co. Rep.7a;
76 E.R.637) was cited with approval.
Allied Motors (P) Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi on 10 March, 1997
In Allied Motors (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-
tax, Delhi, (1997) 3 SCC 472, certain unintended consequences
flew from a provision enacted by the 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. "A proviso which is inserted to remedy
unintended consequences and to make the provision workable, a
proviso which supplies an obvious omission in the section and is
required to be read into the section to give the section a reasonable
interpretation, requires to be treated as retrospective in operation
so that a reasonable interpretation can be given to the section as a
whole."
West U.P. Sugar Mills Association And ... vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 7 February, 2002
In West U.P. Sugar Mills
Association and Ors.'s case (supra) a three-Judges Bench of this
Court held that the State Government by substituting the new rule
in place of the old one never intended to keep alive the old rule.
State Of Rajasthan vs Mangilal Pindwal on 8 July, 1996
In
Mangilal Pindwal's case (supra) this Court upheld the legislative
practice of an amendment by substitution being incorporated in the
text of a statute which had ceased to exist and held that the
substitution would have the effect of amending the operation of law
during the period in which it was in force.
Sunil Kumar Rana vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 19 December, 2002
We hold that Sunil Kumar Rana's case has been correctly
decided. It does not call for any reconsideration. The appeal is
wholly devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed. The decision
by the High Court is maintained.
A. L. V. R. S. T. Veerappa Chettiar vs S. Michael Etc on 19 November, 1962
Substitution of a provision results in repeal of the earlier
provision and its replacement by the new provision (See Principles
of Statutory Interpretation, ibid, p.565). If any authority is needed
in support of the proposition, it is to be found in West U.P. Sugar
Mills Assn. and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (2002) 2 SCC
645, State of Rajasthan Vs. Mangilal Pindwal (1996) 5 SCC
60, Koteswar Vittal Kamath Vs. K. Rangappa Baliga and Co.
(1969) 1 SCC 255 and A.L.V.R.S.T. Veerappa Chettiar Vs. S.
Michael & Ors. AIR 1963 SC 933.