Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 33 (0.30 seconds)Section 6 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in Repealing Act, 1938 [Entire Act]
The General Clauses Act, 1897
Section 81 in Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 [Entire Act]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
M/S. Universal Imports Agencyand ... vs The Chief Controller Of Importsand ... on 23 August, 1960
The ratio of M/s. Universal Imports Agency and Anr. v.
The Chief Controller of Imports and Exports & Ors. [(1961)
1 SCR 305] also is not of assistance to the appellants.
Therein, before the Government of India issued notification
applying the French Establishments' (Application of Laws)
Order, 1954 to the territory of Pondicherry, the appellant
had entered into a contract with the foreign buyers for the
import of the goods which, after the said order came into
force, were imported into Pondicherry. The question therein
was whether Section 6 of the GC Act would apply, Majority of
three judges, dissented by minority opinion of two judges,
had held that the words "things done" in para 6 of the
French Establishments' (Application of Laws) order was
comprehensive enough to take within its ambit not only
things done but also the effect of the legal consequences
flowing therefrom. The ratio is not at all applicable to
the facts of this case.
Nisar Ahmad And Ors vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 9 September, 1994
This ratio was
reiterated by another Bench in Nisar Ahmad & Ors. vs. State
of U.P. & Ors. [(1994) Supp. 3 SCC 460] holding that the
approved scheme is a law by itself and everyone, whether or
not party to the earlier order of this Court K.K. Verma's
case, was bound by the law laid down and directions given by
this Court under Article 142(2) of the Constitution.
India Tobacco Co. Ltd. vs The Commercial Tax Officer, ... on 6 November, 1974
In India Tobacco Co. Ltd. vs. The Commercial Tax
Officer, Bnavanipore & Ors. [(1975) 3 SCC 512 at 517] in
paras 6 and 11, a Bench of three Judges had held that repeal
connotes abrogation and obliteration of one statute by
another from the statute book as completely as if it had
never been passed. When an Act is repealed, it must be
considered, except as to transactions past and closed, as if
it had never existed. Repeal is not a matter of mere form
but is of substance, depending on the intention of the
Legislature. If the intention indicated either expressly or
by necessary implication in the subsequent statute was to
abrogate or wipe off the former enactment wholly or in part,
then it would be a case of total or pro tanto repeal.
Provash Chandra Dalui & Anr vs Biswanath Banerjee & Anr on 3 April, 1989
In Provash Chandra Dalui & Anr. v. Biswanath Banerjee &
Anr. [[1989] Supp. 1 SCC 487 at 496] in para 14, this
Court drew the distinction between the meaning of the words
extension and renewal. It was held that a distinction
between extension and renewal is chiefly that in the case of
renewal, a new lease is required while in the case of
extension the same lease continues in force during
additional period by the performance of stipulated act. In
other words, the word `extension' when used in its proper
and usual sense in connection with a lease, means
prolongation of the lease.