<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1960 (4) TMI 48 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125685</link>
    <description>An amending statute that expressly makes the law &quot;as amended&quot; applicable to pending suits, appeals and proceedings will govern those pending matters in its revised form, including the omission of a prior provision. The Court applied the ordinary meaning of the proviso to section 1(2) of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1953 and held that the omitted section 28 could no longer support relief in an application pending when the amendment commenced. The saving principle in section 8 of the Bengal General Clauses Act could not override the clear contrary intention in the amending statute, and the beneficent character of the legislation did not create ambiguity.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Apr 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Mar 2015 14:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=162595" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1960 (4) TMI 48 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125685</link>
      <description>An amending statute that expressly makes the law &quot;as amended&quot; applicable to pending suits, appeals and proceedings will govern those pending matters in its revised form, including the omission of a prior provision. The Court applied the ordinary meaning of the proviso to section 1(2) of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1953 and held that the omitted section 28 could no longer support relief in an application pending when the amendment commenced. The saving principle in section 8 of the Bengal General Clauses Act could not override the clear contrary intention in the amending statute, and the beneficent character of the legislation did not create ambiguity.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Apr 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125685</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>