Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.29 seconds)

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) where the legislation is introduced to overcome a judicial decision, the power cannot be used to subvert the decision without removing the statutory
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 230 - R Pal - Full Document

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 the 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).
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 270 - V N Khare - Full Document
1   2 Next