https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171081 A pending scheme proposed under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 did not lapse merely because the final notification was delayed until after the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 commenced, especially where the delay was contributed to by the affected operators and the old Act prescribed no automatic time limit. Section 217(2)(e) saved such pending schemes, and Section 100(4) had to be applied harmoniously so that the one-year period ran from commencement of the new Act for old-Act schemes, with exclusion of stay periods. The scheme was therefore validly finalised and the challenge to the notified route failed. en-us Fri, 09 Aug 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Jul 2015 12:50:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171081 A pending scheme proposed under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 did not lapse merely because the final notification was delayed until after the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 commenced, especially where the delay was contributed to by the affected operators and the old Act prescribed no automatic time limit. Section 217(2)(e) saved such pending schemes, and Section 100(4) had to be applied harmoniously so that the one-year period ran from commencement of the new Act for old-Act schemes, with exclusion of stay periods. The scheme was therefore validly finalised and the challenge to the notified route failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 09 Aug 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171081