<?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>1953 (3) TMI 24 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171610</link>
    <description>A repealing-and-reenacting statute that expressly preserves prior notifications through a deeming provision carries the notification forward under the new law. Section 25 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904 kept the earlier notification in force so far as it was consistent with the re-enacted Act, and the statutory fiction in section 15(1) had to be given full effect. The notification could not be read narrowly in a literal sense where that would defeat the purpose of the deeming provision. As a result, the notification continued to extend the re-enacted Act to the notified areas, and the High Court&#039;s contrary view was incorrect.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 1953 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 May 2025 11:30:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=391425" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1953 (3) TMI 24 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171610</link>
      <description>A repealing-and-reenacting statute that expressly preserves prior notifications through a deeming provision carries the notification forward under the new law. Section 25 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904 kept the earlier notification in force so far as it was consistent with the re-enacted Act, and the statutory fiction in section 15(1) had to be given full effect. The notification could not be read narrowly in a literal sense where that would defeat the purpose of the deeming provision. As a result, the notification continued to extend the re-enacted Act to the notified areas, and the High Court&#039;s contrary view was incorrect.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 1953 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171610</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>