Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.27 seconds)Section 1 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Orissa General Clauses Act, 1937 [Entire Act]
The Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1967
Amadalavalasa Cooperative ... vs U.O.I on 17 November, 1975
Similar view was expressed by the Supreme Court in the case of Amadalavalasa Co-operative Agricultural and Industrial Society Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 958.
Seth Jugmendar Das And Ors. vs State on 13 April, 1951
6. The effect of the saving clause has been the subject-matter of determination by various Courts. The consistent view is that though an Act has expired, the effect of things done or omitted to be done can be saved. The saving clause does not stand on the same footing as the Act itself. An Act may be dead as regards the future acts, but can be kept alive as regards the past acts. There is no reason or logic behind the proposition that incorporation of a saving clause in an emergency legislation is inconsistent with the object of the legislation. [See AIR 1953 All 703 : Seth Jugmendar Das v. State].
M.J. Delaflore And Anr. vs Amir Mohammad And Ors. on 25 April, 1969
In the case of M. P. J. Delaflore v. Amir Mohammed, AIR 1970 Madras 308, it was held that the saving provision means that the pending legal proceedings cannot be put to an end to by reason of anything enacted in the later law if the party affected has a right to continue the legal proceeding under the repealed Act. What is saved by the saving provision is only the right to continue the legal proceeding notwithstanding anything in the later enactment which may affect such continuance. We are in agreement with the view expressed by the Allahabad and Madras High Courts. The reason for an insertion of the saving clause is not far to seek. In the words of Maxwell:
Section 5 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. And M.R. ... vs Director Of Enforcement, New Delhi on 23 July, 1961
The effect of the expression "except with respect to things done, or omitted to be done" has been considered by several Courts. The Delhi High Court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court have taken the view that the words were used to indicate protection to proceeding or action already taken or omitted to be taken. (See 1969 Cri LJ 1582 (Madras); M. R. Pratap v. Director of Enforcement, New Delhi, AIR 1959 Madh Pra93 : State of Madhya Pradesh v. Hiralal Sutwale).