https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292804 Article 227 was held not to operate retrospectively to reopen a final order made before the Constitution came into force. The text applied the settled principle that a later procedural provision may act retrospectively only where that construction is textually permissible, but a provision affecting existing rights does not do so unless express words or necessary intendment show that result. As no express retrospective language or necessary intendment was found in Article 227, the Constitution did not authorise interference with the earlier final order. en-us Wed, 21 Jun 1950 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Jan 2021 11:47:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292804 Article 227 was held not to operate retrospectively to reopen a final order made before the Constitution came into force. The text applied the settled principle that a later procedural provision may act retrospectively only where that construction is textually permissible, but a provision affecting existing rights does not do so unless express words or necessary intendment show that result. As no express retrospective language or necessary intendment was found in Article 227, the Constitution did not authorise interference with the earlier final order. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 21 Jun 1950 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292804