Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.21 seconds)
Bhupendra Chandra Chatterjee vs Indian Airlines Corporation on 13 July, 1977 cites

Income-Tax Officer, Alleppey vs M.C. Ponnoose & Ors on 28 July, 1969

In the Income-tax Officer v. J.M.C. Ponnoose, , the Supreme Court has observed that it is open to a sovereign Legislature to enact laws which have retrospective operation. The Courts will not ascribe retrospectivity to new laws affecting rights unless by express words or necessary implication it appears that such was the intention of the Legislature. Parliament can delegate its legislative power within the recognised limits. Where any rule or regulation is made by any person or authority to whom such powers have been delegated by the Legislature it may or may not be possible to make the same so as to give retrospective operation. It will depend on the language employed in the statutory provision which may in express terms or by authority concerned to make a rule or regulation with retrospective effect. But where no such language is to be found it has been held by the Courts that the person or authority exercising subordinate legislative functions cannot make a rule, regulation or bye-law which can operate with retrospective effect.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 329 - A N Grover - Full Document

Cannanore Spinning And Weaving Mills ... vs Collector Of Customs And Central ... on 22 November, 1965

In the Cannanore Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. v. The Collector of Customs and Central Excise. Cochin and Ors. , the Supreme Court held that under Section 37 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the rule-making authority was not invested with the power to make rules with retrospective effect. It is, therefore, well-settled that unless the rule-making authority is conferred with the power to make rules with retrospective effect, it cannot make any rule giving it a retrospective operation. Section 45 does not confer on the defendant-Corporation to make regulation with retrospective effect. It has, however, been argued on behalf of the defendant-Corporation that Section 45(2) read with Section 20(1) of the Air Corporation Act, 1953 has by necessary implication, conferred such power on the defendant-Corporation to make rules and regulations with retrospective effect. We are unable to accept this contention. Section 20(1) inter alia provides that every officer or other employee of an existing air company shall become as from the appointed day an officer or other employee as the case may be, of the Corporation in which the undertaking has vested and shall hold his office or service therein by the same tenure, at the same remuneration and upon the same terms and conditions and with the same rights aid privileges as to pension and gratuity and Other matters as he would have held the same under the existing air company if its undertaking had not vested in the Corporation and shall continue to do so unless and until his employment in the Corporation is terminated or until his remuneration, terms or conditions are duly altered by the Corporation. In our view, there is nothing in Section 20(1) which suggests that the Corporation will have the power to alter the conditions of service of the employees with retrospective effect. In these circumstances, we hold that amended Rule 12 (IX did not take effect from any date prior to its publication in the Official Gazette on July 13, 1968. The retirement notice issued to the plaintiff on April 21, 1968 was illegal and ultra vires Section 45.
Kerala High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 45 - Full Document
1