Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.23 seconds)The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Section 6 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
Gold (Control) Act, 1968
Section 6 in The Orissa General Clauses Act, 1937 [Entire Act]
Vinod Gurudas Raikar vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. And Ors on 6 September, 1991
6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in above case held that when actually proceedings were initiated when the Old Act was in force covering the field than the claim at could say that his right which has accrued on filing of the petition could not be taken away. Here in the present case before us, admittedly, claim petition was not filed when the old provision of law was in force. The claim petition was filed by the claimant in the year 1996, which is after the amendment of 1994 by which the Sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Act of 1988 has been omitted w.e.f. 14th Nov., 1994. Therefore, there was no bar of limitation against entertaining the claim petition of the claimant at the time of filing of the claim petition. Even in the Vinod Gurudas Raikar's case, which was relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant, the Hon'ble Apex Court categorically held that benefit of repealed law cannot be given to the claimant because of cause of action for the claim arose before repeal. Therefore, the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant mentioned above have no application.
Section 217 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Ramesh Singh & Another vs Cinta Devi & Others on 23 February, 1996
In the case of Ramesh Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court considered whether right of appeal under old Act survives even after its repeal by the New Act for which the Hon'ble Apex Court after considering Section 6 of the General Clauses Act and Section 217 Sub-section (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 held that right to appeal will crystallise in the appellant on the institution of the application in the Tribunal of first instance and that vested right of appeal would not be dislodged by the enactment of the new Act and further held that in other words, the appellant would be entitled to file the appeal without being required to make the deposit under the proviso to Section 173 of the New Act. In this case, the point, which is involved before us was not there.
Dhannalal vs D.P. Vijayvargiya & Ors on 7 May, 1996
In view of the decision delivered in the case of Dhannalal (supra) it is clear that claim petition of the claimants was not liable for rejection on..... ground of bar of limitation. It is also settled law that limitation for filling claim bars remedy only and does not destroy the right. Therefore, also the tribunal had no jurisdiction to dismiss the claim on the basis of provisions of repealed Act.