Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)State Of Punjab vs Mohar Singh on 20 October, 1954
60. Justice G P Singh, in his "Principles of
Statutory Interpretation", 15th edition, has
explained that under the common law, the
consequences of the repeal of a statute are very
drastic. Except as to transactions past and closed,
a statute after its repeal is treated as completely
obliterated as if it had never been enacted. The
effect is to destroy all inchoate rights and all
causes of action that may have arisen under the
repealed statute. Therefore, leaving aside the cases
where proceedings were commenced, prosecuted and
brought to a finality before the repeal, no
proceeding under the repealed statute can be
commenced or continued after the repeal (See Keshvan
Vs State of Bombay31, State of Punjab Vs Mohar
Singh32, Qudrat Ullah Vs Municipal Board,
Bareilly33, State of Rajasthan Vs Mangilal Pindwal34
and Mohan Raj Vs Dimbeswari Saikia & Anr35).
Qudrat Ullah vs Municipal Board, Barelly on 29 November, 1973
60. Justice G P Singh, in his "Principles of
Statutory Interpretation", 15th edition, has
explained that under the common law, the
consequences of the repeal of a statute are very
drastic. Except as to transactions past and closed,
a statute after its repeal is treated as completely
obliterated as if it had never been enacted. The
effect is to destroy all inchoate rights and all
causes of action that may have arisen under the
repealed statute. Therefore, leaving aside the cases
where proceedings were commenced, prosecuted and
brought to a finality before the repeal, no
proceeding under the repealed statute can be
commenced or continued after the repeal (See Keshvan
Vs State of Bombay31, State of Punjab Vs Mohar
Singh32, Qudrat Ullah Vs Municipal Board,
Bareilly33, State of Rajasthan Vs Mangilal Pindwal34
and Mohan Raj Vs Dimbeswari Saikia & Anr35).
State Of Rajasthan vs Mangilal Pindwal on 8 July, 1996
60. Justice G P Singh, in his "Principles of
Statutory Interpretation", 15th edition, has
explained that under the common law, the
consequences of the repeal of a statute are very
drastic. Except as to transactions past and closed,
a statute after its repeal is treated as completely
obliterated as if it had never been enacted. The
effect is to destroy all inchoate rights and all
causes of action that may have arisen under the
repealed statute. Therefore, leaving aside the cases
where proceedings were commenced, prosecuted and
brought to a finality before the repeal, no
proceeding under the repealed statute can be
commenced or continued after the repeal (See Keshvan
Vs State of Bombay31, State of Punjab Vs Mohar
Singh32, Qudrat Ullah Vs Municipal Board,
Bareilly33, State of Rajasthan Vs Mangilal Pindwal34
and Mohan Raj Vs Dimbeswari Saikia & Anr35).
Mohan Raj vs Dimbeswari Saikia & Anr on 10 November, 2006
60. Justice G P Singh, in his "Principles of
Statutory Interpretation", 15th edition, has
explained that under the common law, the
consequences of the repeal of a statute are very
drastic. Except as to transactions past and closed,
a statute after its repeal is treated as completely
obliterated as if it had never been enacted. The
effect is to destroy all inchoate rights and all
causes of action that may have arisen under the
repealed statute. Therefore, leaving aside the cases
where proceedings were commenced, prosecuted and
brought to a finality before the repeal, no
proceeding under the repealed statute can be
commenced or continued after the repeal (See Keshvan
Vs State of Bombay31, State of Punjab Vs Mohar
Singh32, Qudrat Ullah Vs Municipal Board,
Bareilly33, State of Rajasthan Vs Mangilal Pindwal34
and Mohan Raj Vs Dimbeswari Saikia & Anr35).
Keshavan Madhava Menon vs The State Of Bombay on 22 January, 1951
In Keshavan Menon Vs State of Bombay (supra),
the expression and concept of "transactions past and
closed" was explained in the context of repeal of an
Act in paragraph Nos. 11, 12 and 14, which are
transcribed below for the convenience of reference:
J.K. Gas Plant Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs Emperor on 11 April, 1947
"11. This statement of law by Craies was referred
to with Approval and adopted by the F. C. in J. K.
Gas, Plant Manufacturing Co., (Rampur), Ltd. v.
Emperor, (1947) F.C.R. 141 at p. 166: (A. I. R.
(34) 1947 F.C. 38:48 Cr. L. J. 886). As to the
effect of the repeal of an Act, the following
passage from Craies' book seems to sum up the legal
position as it obtained in England before the
enactment of the Interpretation Act of 1889 :
Hikal Limited vs Union Of India And 6 Ors on 30 March, 2023
6. We may, at this stage, refer to the decision of
the Bombay High Court in the case of Hikal Limited &
Ors. (supra), wherein the Bombay High Court, while
considering the Notification dated 8th October, 2024
and the provisions of Rules 89(4B) and 96(10) of the
Rules, and the analogous issue, has held thus:
1