https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199766 A legislature may validly remove the is of a judicial decision by retrospective or curative law, but it cannot by bare declaration nullify subsisting judicial orders or stays. Provisions that empowered authorities to proceed despite stay orders, vacated existing stays, or deprived successful litigants of land already adjudged in their favour were held to trench upon judicial power and offend the rule of law, so they were declared void and unconstitutional. By contrast, the substituted Section 46, which withdrew civil court jurisdiction over matters assigned to the competent authority and barred stay in such cases, was upheld because no constitutional invalidity was shown. en-us Mon, 21 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Mar 2018 15:44:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199766 A legislature may validly remove the is of a judicial decision by retrospective or curative law, but it cannot by bare declaration nullify subsisting judicial orders or stays. Provisions that empowered authorities to proceed despite stay orders, vacated existing stays, or deprived successful litigants of land already adjudged in their favour were held to trench upon judicial power and offend the rule of law, so they were declared void and unconstitutional. By contrast, the substituted Section 46, which withdrew civil court jurisdiction over matters assigned to the competent authority and barred stay in such cases, was upheld because no constitutional invalidity was shown. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 21 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199766