TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a decree for pre-emption, which had attained finality before the constitutional invalidation of the relevant provisions of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, could still be executed between the parties. (ii) Whether the substituted Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 operated so as to affect decrees for pre-emption that had already been affirmed and had become final.
Issue (i): Whether a decree for pre-emption, which had attained finality before the constitutional invalidation of the relevant provisions of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, could still be executed between the parties.
Analysis: The decree for pre-emption had been passed, affirmed in appeal, and upheld in second appeal long before the later constitutional declaration. The controlling principle applied was that decrees which have become final remain binding between the parties, and the later declaration does not unsettle such concluded adjudications. The finality of the decree therefore protected its enforceability inter se the parties.
Conclusion: The final pre-emption decree remained binding inter partes and was executable notwithstanding the later declaration of invalidity.
Issue (ii): Whether the substituted Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 operated so as to affect decrees for pre-emption that had already been affirmed and had become final.
Analysis: The substituted provision was held to be prospective in operation. On that construction, it could not reopen or impair a decree for pre-emption already passed and affirmed years earlier. The amendment did not alter the legal effect of the earlier concluded proceedings.
Conclusion: The substituted Section 15 did not affect the earlier final decree for pre-emption.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was sustained, and the appeals failed because the earlier final decree for pre-emption continued to bind the parties and was not displaced by the later statutory substitution.
Ratio Decidendi: A decree that has attained finality remains binding between the parties and is not undone by a subsequent declaration of invalidity or by a later statutory amendment that operates prospectively.
TaxTMI 
