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 decisions of the Bombay High Court delivered before the appointed day were binding on the Gujarat High Court under the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960.
Analysis: Section 87 was read with the scheme of the reorganisation statute to preserve the law in force in the territories that formed the new State of Gujarat. The expression "law in force" was given a broad meaning, and the continuation of pre-reorganisation law was held to include judicial precedents of the Bombay High Court delivered before the appointed day. The Court rejected a narrow territorial reading that would have treated the reorganisation as wiping out the existing body of binding law and emphasised continuity, certainty, and the legislative purpose behind the Act.
Conclusion: Decisions of the Bombay High Court delivered before the appointed day were held to be binding on the Gujarat High Court.
Final Conclusion: The pre-reorganisation decisions of the Bombay High Court continued to operate as binding authority in Gujarat until altered by competent law.
Ratio Decidendi: The statutory phrase "law in force" in the reorganisation legislation includes binding judicial precedents of the predecessor High Court, so that pre-appointed-day decisions continue to govern the successor State's High Court unless displaced by competent legislation or later binding authority.