Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 40 (0.43 seconds)
Kishori Lal Potdar vs Debi Prasad Kejriwal And Anr. on 29 October, 1949 cites

Jnan Prosanna Das Gupta And Anr. vs The Province Of West Bengal on 27 July, 1948

There are provisos with which we are not concerned. Certainly the jurisdiction under Section 88 cannot be questioned, and has not been questioned. It has been argued first that, as the Ordinance has limited duration and ceases to operate at the expiration of six weeks from the reassembly of the Legislature unless replaced by an Act, it cannot provide for the duration of the Act for five years. That argument, in my opinion, is not correct, and ignores the provision in Section 88 (2) that an Ordinance promulgated under this section shall have the same force and effect as an Act of the Provincial Legislature assented to by the Governor. It is clearly open to the Governor by such Ordinance to repeal and amend an existing Indian law. For this the Full Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in Jnan Prosanna Das Gupta v. Province of West Bengal 53 C. W. N. 27 at pages 70-71: (A. I. R. (86) 1949 Cal. 1: 50 Cr. L. J. 1 F. B.) is a clear authority. Secondly, it is argued that the Ordinance cannot amend retrospectively. But the case just cited is an authority to that effect also. In my opinion, this Ordinance being valid, the Act must now be treated as having been enacted for a period of five years.
Calcutta High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 17 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next