Search Results For: R. Venkataramani


Sushila N. Rungta vs. TRO (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 30, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 6, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Interpretation of statutes: Effect of repeal of a statute u/s 6 of the General Clauses Act on pending proceedings explained in the context of the Gold Control Act and in view of law laid down in State of Punjab vs. Mohar Singh [1955] 1 SCR 893, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. C. Padma (2003) 7 SCC 713 etc

The statement of objects and reasons makes it clear that over 22 years, the results achieved under the Act have not been encouraging and the desired objectives for which the Act has been introduced have failed. Following the advice of experts, who have examined issues related to the Act, the objects and reasons goes on further to state that this Act has proved to be a regressive measure which has caused considerable dissatisfaction in the minds of the public and hardship and harassment to artisans and small self-employed goldsmiths. This being the case, we are of the opinion that the repeal simpliciter, in the present case, does not attract the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act as a contrary intention is very clearly expressed in the statement of objects and reasons to the 1990 repeal Act

Top