https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174212 A scheme validly settled under the repealed enactment was treated by the deeming provision in section 103(d) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 as continuing under the later Act, so it could not be re-opened in writ proceedings on a collateral inconsistency challenge; any change had to be sought through the statutory modification mechanism in section 62(3)(a). The Court also held that a scheme framed before the Constitution did not become unconstitutional merely because implementation continued after 26 January 1950, since fundamental rights are not retrospective. The Article 19(1)(f) challenge therefore failed. en-us Fri, 08 May 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Oct 2015 15:03:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174212 A scheme validly settled under the repealed enactment was treated by the deeming provision in section 103(d) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 as continuing under the later Act, so it could not be re-opened in writ proceedings on a collateral inconsistency challenge; any change had to be sought through the statutory modification mechanism in section 62(3)(a). The Court also held that a scheme framed before the Constitution did not become unconstitutional merely because implementation continued after 26 January 1950, since fundamental rights are not retrospective. The Article 19(1)(f) challenge therefore failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 08 May 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174212