 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
 |
 |
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
 |
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
General Clauses Act, 1897 6. Effect of repeal Where this Act, or any 13[Central Act] or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not- (a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect; or (b) affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder ; or (c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or (d) affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any enactment so repealed; or (e) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid; and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the repealing Act or Regulation had not been passed. Comment: Applying the Golden Rule of construction as stated by this Court in Garikapatti Veeraya (AIR 1957 SC 540) (supra) in the amending Act there was nothing to show that the Act would have retrospective effect. As "the essential idea of a legal system is that current law should govern current activities". We hold that rate of compensation shall have to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Act which was in force at the time compensation was payable i.e. unamended sub-section (4) of Section 25 of the Act would apply. Moreover, the amending Act affects the substantive right of the appellant, therefore, it would have prospective operation. There is also no express or implied provision in the amending Act to indicate that the Act will have retrospective effect. We, therefore, hold that the amending Act would apply prospectively. Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Shahdeo , Appellant v. State of Bihar AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 3609    |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
 |
|
 |
|
|||||||||
Back