https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275863 Section 4(a) of the Marwar Limitation (Amendment) Act, 1949 was treated as ambiguous, and the Court preferred a construction that preserved existing rights of suit unless the legislature clearly intended otherwise. Limitation was described as procedural, but a shortening of the limitation period was not read to defeat suits that would be barred only on institution after the amendment. The words "would be barred" were construed to mean barred at the time of filing, so the suit fell within the saving clause and was also protected by section 9 of the Rajasthan Limitation Act (Adaptation) Ordinance, 1950 and section 30 of the Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951. en-us Fri, 26 Nov 1954 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Oct 2018 13:22:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275863 Section 4(a) of the Marwar Limitation (Amendment) Act, 1949 was treated as ambiguous, and the Court preferred a construction that preserved existing rights of suit unless the legislature clearly intended otherwise. Limitation was described as procedural, but a shortening of the limitation period was not read to defeat suits that would be barred only on institution after the amendment. The words "would be barred" were construed to mean barred at the time of filing, so the suit fell within the saving clause and was also protected by section 9 of the Rajasthan Limitation Act (Adaptation) Ordinance, 1950 and section 30 of the Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 26 Nov 1954 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275863