Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (0.29 seconds)Section 18 in The U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904 [Entire Act]
Section 28 in The U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904 [Entire Act]
Firm A. T. B. Mehtabmajid And Co vs State Of Madras And Another on 22 November, 1962
In Firm A.T.B. Mehtab Majid and Co. v. State of Madras and Anr., (1963)
Suppl. (2) 435, it was held that where an old rule has been substituted by
a new rule, it ceases to exist and does not get revive when the new rule
is held invalid.
Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 7 October, 1985
In Indian Express Newspaper (Bom.) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and
Ors., [1985] 1 SCC 641, the Government of India issued a notification dated
July 15, 1977, which was in force prior to March 1, 1981 under which total
exemption had been granted. Subsequently, the said notification was
substituted by another notification dated March 1,1981. The question arose
whether the old notification dated July 15, 1977 would revive on quashing
of the notification dated March 1, 1981. This Court held that on striking
down of subsequent notification, the repealed notification does not revive.