Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.27 seconds)Section 6 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
Zile Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 7 October, 2004
1. Zile Singh Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2004 SC 5100
. In this case, it is observed that, the presumption
against retrospective operation is not applicable to
declaratory statutes. An amending Act may be purely
declaratory to clear a meaning of a provision of the
principal Act which was already implicit. A clarificatory
amendment of this nature will have retrospective effect.
(Para14).
Government Of India & Ors vs Indian Tobacco Association on 23 August, 2005
2. Govt. of India v. Indian Tobacco Association
AIR 2005 SC 3685
. After referring to dictionary meaning of
'substitute', it is held that, by reason of the aforementioned
amendment no substantive right has been taken away nor
any penal consequence has been imposed. Only an obvious
mistake was sought to be removed thereby. There cannot
furthermore be any doubt whatsoever that when a person is
held to be eligible to obtain the benefits of an exemption
notification, the same should be liberally construed.
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 20 in The Dentists Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
State Of Rajasthan vs Mangilal Pindwal on 8 July, 1996
In State of
Rajasthan Vs. Mangilal Pindwal (1996) 5 SCC 60, the
Court upheld the legislative practice of an amendment by
substitution being incorporated in the text of a statute.
Koteswar Vittal Kamath vs K. Rangapa Baliga & Co on 9 December, 1968
In
Koteswar Kamath Vs. K. Rangappa (1969) 1 SCC 255,
while distinguishing 'supersession' and 'substitution', it is
held that the process of substitution consists of two steps.
First, the old rule is made to cease to exist and, next the
new rule is brought into existence in its place. (Para 25).
Shamarao V. Parulekar vs The District Magistrate, Thana, Bombay ... on 26 May, 1952
3. Shamrao Parulekar v District Magistrate
AIR 1952 SC 324
With reference to Section 3 of Preventive Detention Act,
1952, Justice Vivian Bose observed in his inimitable style
& clarity,
When a subsequent Act amends an earlier one in such a
way as to incorporate itself or a part of itself, into the
earlier, then the earlier Act must thereafter be read and
construed (except where that would lead to a repugnancy,
inconsistency or absurdity) as if the altered words had
been written into the earlier Act with pen and ink and the
old words scored out so that there is no need to refer to
the amending Act at all.
Commissioner Of Income Tax, U.P vs Shah Sadiq And Sons on 14 April, 1987
5. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shah Sadiq
AIR 1987 SC 1217
It deals with the provisions of saving and repeal but it is
not applicable to the present case.