Panchi Devi v. State of Rajasthan

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH THE SECRETARY vs. M/S KARDICOPPAL ESTATE THITHIMATHI

Appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

…dered, as has been stated above, such decision ineffective by removing the basis on which the decision was arrived at. 23 20. The learned counsel for the respondent cited three decisions before us. Panchi Devi v. State of Rajasthan [(2009) 2 SCC 589], SCC para 9 was cited before us for the proposition that a delegated legislation being ordinarily prospective in nature should not be interpreted to give a retrospective effect to take away a right or liability which was created for the first time. In the present case, we are concerned with an Act of the Legislature and not delegated legisla…

M/S STAR INDUSTRIES vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS(IMPORTS) RAIGAD

…ier Glynrhonwy Slate Co. (1928) 1 KB 561, p. 568, Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1976 SC 331 p. 338 : (1975) 2 scc 671; Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Tek Chand Bhatia, supra; State (Delhi Administration v. Puran Mal (1985) 2 SCC 589 : AIR 1985 SC 741. And as pointed out by LORD HALSBURY, the Civil Appeal No. 6088 of 2013 Page 18 of 32 Page 19 JUDGMENT reading of 'or' as 'and' is not to be resorted to, “unless some other part of the same statute or the clear intention of it requires that to be done.” (Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v. Henderson Bros. (1888) 13 AC 595 (…

M/S STAR INDUSTRIES vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS(IMPORTS) RAIGAD

…ier Glynrhonwy Slate Co. (1928) 1 KB 561, p. 568, Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1976 SC 331 p. 338 : (1975) 2 scc 671; Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Tek Chand Bhatia, supra; State (Delhi Administration v. Puran Mal (1985) 2 SCC 589 : AIR 1985 SC 741. And as pointed out by LORD HALSBURY, the Civil Appeal No. 6088 of 2013 Page 18 of 32 Page 19 JUDGMENT reading of 'or' as 'and' is not to be resorted to, “unless some other part of the same statute or the clear intention of it requires that to be done.” (Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v. Henderson Bros. (1888) 13 AC 595 (…

ASST. COMMNR. OF AGRI. INCOME TAX vs. M/S. NETLEY 'B' ESTATE

…ered, as has been stated above, such decision ineffective by removing the basis on which the decision was arrived at. Learned counsel for the respondent cited three decisions before us. Panchi Devi v. State of Rajasthan and others [(2009) 2 SCC 589], para 9 was cited before us for the proposition that a delegated legislation being ordinarily prospective in nature should not be interpreted to give a retrospective effect to take away a right or liability which was created for the first time. In the present case, we are concerned with an Act of the Legislature and not delega…

ASST. COMMNR. OF AGRI. INCOME TAX vs. M/S. NETLEY 'B' ESTATE

…ered, as has been stated above, such decision ineffective by removing the basis on which the decision was arrived at. Learned counsel for the respondent cited three decisions before us. Panchi Devi v. State of Rajasthan and others [(2009) 2 SCC 589], para 9 was cited before us for the proposition that a delegated legislation being ordinarily prospective in nature should not be interpreted to give a retrospective effect to take away a right or liability which was created for the first time. In the present case, we are concerned with an Act of the Legislature and not delega…