Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 40 (0.60 seconds)Article 48A in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948
Andhra Pradesh Electricity Reform Act, 1998
Section 6 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax, U.P vs Shah Sadiq And Sons on 14 April, 1987
28. A saving provision in a repealing statute is not exhaustive of the rights and obligations so saved or the rights that survive the repeal. It is observed by this Court in I.T. Commissioner v. Shah Sadiq & Sons: (SCCp. 524, para 15)
...In other words whatever rights are expressly saved by the 'savings' provision stand saved. But, that does not mean that rights which are not saved by the 'savings' provision are extinguished or stand ipso facto terminated by the mere fact that a new statute repealing the old statute is enacted. Rights which have accrued are saved unless they are taken away expressly. This is the principle behind Section 6, General Clauses Act, 1897....
Mahabir Vegetable Oil (P) Ltd. vs State Of Haryana And Ors. on 1 February, 2002
57. It should, however, be clearly understood that we are not holding that the Government in exercise of its executive power, when not restricted by Statute cannot change its earlier policy on relevant grounds. It is well settled that the Government for discernable reasons can withdraw a policy and in its place frame a new policy. This position was explained by the Supreme Court in Mahabir Vegetable Oils (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana (supra), wherein relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. , it was held as under:
Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Southern Petrochemical Industries Co. ... vs Electricity Inspector And E.T.I.O. & ... on 15 May, 2007
52. Applying the dictum laid down in the aforesaid decisions to the instant case, the rights of the appellants to avail the incentive in the form of fixation of wheeling charges in accordance with the policy decision of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, issued vide G.O.Ms. No. 93 of 1997, stand preserved and protected by the principle of promissory estoppel. The Commission failed to properly appreciate the following aspects of the matter: