TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Legal actions under repealed law upheld by Court, emphasizing preservation of ongoing proceedings</h1> <h3>ISMAIL KUTTY Versus ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE</h3> The Court held that the prosecution under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 remains sustainable despite its repeal by the Gold (Control) Repeal Bill, 1990. ... Gold - Prosecution Issues:1. Whether the prosecution under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 is sustainable after its repeal by the Gold (Control) Repeal Bill, 1990.2. Interpretation of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act regarding the consequences of repeal of an enactment.3. Analysis of the Statement of Objects and Reasons in the Gold (Control) Repeal Bill, 1990.4. Application of legal principles from State of Punjab v. Mohar Singh (AIR 1955 SC 84) and Keshavan v. State of Bombay (AIR 1951 SC 128) in the present case.Detailed Analysis:1. The petition sought to quash proceedings under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, alleging its repeal by the Gold (Control) Repeal Bill, 1990. The petitioner argued that the repeal should invalidate the ongoing prosecution. However, the respondents contended that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act preserves legal actions initiated under a repealed Act unless a different intention is evident. The Court examined the intention behind the repeal and the effect on existing rights and liabilities under the repealed Act.2. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act stipulates that a repeal of an enactment does not affect rights, obligations, or legal proceedings under the repealed law unless a contrary intention is apparent. The petitioner relied on the Statement of Objects and Reasons in the Repeal Bill to argue for discontinuation of prosecutions under the repealed Act. However, the Court emphasized that mere dissatisfaction with the previous law does not imply a legislative intent to halt ongoing legal actions automatically.3. Citing the case of State of Punjab v. Mohar Singh (AIR 1955 SC 84), the Court highlighted that a new legislation on the same subject does not necessarily extinguish rights and liabilities under the old law unless expressly provided. The absence of a saving clause does not negate the application of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. The Court underscored the need to ascertain any intention to destroy existing rights from the provisions of the new law.4. Referring to Keshavan v. State of Bombay (AIR 1951 SC 128), the Court reiterated that the retrospective operation of laws, like Article 13(1) of the Indian Constitution, does not affect past transactions and vested rights. This principle supported the conclusion that actions taken under a repealed Act remain valid unless a clear intention to the contrary is evident. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition to quash the ongoing prosecution under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, emphasizing the preservation of legal proceedings post-repeal unless a different legislative intent is demonstrated.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
