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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether clause 3 of Ordinance No. XIX of 1946 continued requisitions of immovable property that were in force on the date the Defence of India Act, 1939 and the rules made thereunder expired, including requisitions fixed to expire on that same date.
Analysis: The Ordinance was enacted to meet the emergency caused by the expiry of the Defence of India Act, 1939 and the rules made thereunder. Reading clause 3 with the definition of "requisitioned land" in clause 2(3), the words covered all immovable property which, when the Defence of India Act expired, was subject to requisition under the rules. On a plain and grammatical construction, the continuance operated upon every such requisitioned property until the expiry of the Ordinance, regardless of whether the original requisition was for a limited period or an indefinite period. The non obstante clause did not cut down the clear operative words of the enactment, but only clarified the position.
Conclusion: Clause 3 did continue the requisition in question, and the contrary view taken by the courts below was held to be erroneous.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the language of a statutory continuance provision is clear, a non obstante clause cannot be used to narrow its plain scope, and all properties answering the statutory definition remain under requisition until the stated expiry of the enactment.