https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157521 Article examines whether the Uttar Pradesh Transport Services (Development) Act, 1955 and schemes framed under it were displaced by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1956 under Article 254, and whether an already finalised scheme survived. It states that repugnancy would affect the State law only to the extent of inconsistency, that the Central amendment operated prospectively, and that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act preserved acts already done under the earlier scheme. It also addresses compensation under Article 31(2), noting that the Act's permit-cancellation compensation framework, interest, cash payment, and reference to the District Judge were treated as providing adequate compensation. en-us Thu, 15 Jan 1959 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Sep 2014 08:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157521 Article examines whether the Uttar Pradesh Transport Services (Development) Act, 1955 and schemes framed under it were displaced by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1956 under Article 254, and whether an already finalised scheme survived. It states that repugnancy would affect the State law only to the extent of inconsistency, that the Central amendment operated prospectively, and that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act preserved acts already done under the earlier scheme. It also addresses compensation under Article 31(2), noting that the Act's permit-cancellation compensation framework, interest, cash payment, and reference to the District Judge were treated as providing adequate compensation. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 15 Jan 1959 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157521