<?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>1958 (3) TMI 81 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194632</link>
    <description>Section 2(b) of the United State of Gwalior, Indore and Malwa (Madhya-Bharat) High Court of Judicature Act, 1949 was held to extend the Act to proceedings pending or arising in the erstwhile State after its inclusion, and when read with section 25 it conferred a right of special appeal to the Full Bench. The statutory language was treated as sufficiently clear to apply that appellate right even though the Divisional Bench judgment had been delivered before commencement. The presumption against retrospectivity was rejected because the text itself gave retrospective effect, and the argument that the provision only enlarged jurisdiction was not accepted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Sep 2017 16:31:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=489646" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1958 (3) TMI 81 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194632</link>
      <description>Section 2(b) of the United State of Gwalior, Indore and Malwa (Madhya-Bharat) High Court of Judicature Act, 1949 was held to extend the Act to proceedings pending or arising in the erstwhile State after its inclusion, and when read with section 25 it conferred a right of special appeal to the Full Bench. The statutory language was treated as sufficiently clear to apply that appellate right even though the Divisional Bench judgment had been delivered before commencement. The presumption against retrospectivity was rejected because the text itself gave retrospective effect, and the argument that the provision only enlarged jurisdiction was not accepted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194632</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>