1. Applicability of Section 6, General Clauses Act to Repeal Act, 2005; permission to file applications under Punjab Act, 2009 despite delay. (Para 2 )
Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.M. LODHA, CJI., MADAN B. LOKUR, KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.
UNION OF INDIA - APPELLANT
Versus
INTERNATIONAL SINDHI PANCHAYATS & OTHERS - RESPONDENT
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6079 OF 2010
WITH
FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER APPEALS PUNJAB - APPELLANT
& ORS.
Versus
JATINDER PAL SINGH & OTHERS - RESPONDENT
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4940 OF 2014
[ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) NO. 9890 OF 2009]
Decided On : 28-04-2014
1. Applicability of Section 6, General Clauses Act to Repeal Act, 2005; permission to file applications under Punjab Act, 2009 despite delay. (Para 2 )
2. Senior counsel argued Section 6 applies to continue pending proceedings; counsel sought permission to file applications due to pendency. (Para 3 )
3. Court held Section 6 applicable to Repeal Act; allowed respondents to make applications within 90 days. (Para 2 )
4. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act applies to a Repeal Act, allowing continuation of pending proceedings under the repealed enactment. (Para 2 )
5. Declared Section 6 applicable; ordered continuation of pending cases; permitted applications under Punjab Act within 90 days; directed expeditious decision. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 )
Yes, the court declared that Section 6 applies, allowing continuation of pending proceedings under the repealed Act. (Para 2 )
Yes, the court permitted the respondents to make applications within 90 days from the order, as the pendency prevented earlier filing. (Para 4 )
ORDER
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6079 OF 2010:
1. We have heard Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel for the appellant, Mr. Yashpal Dhingra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, Mr. Arvind Savant, learned senior counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5, Mr. Shankar Chillarge, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 6 to 8 and Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 9.
2. As against respondent Nos. 6 & 8, it is ordered as follows:
It is declared that the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act are applicable to the Displaced Persons Claims and Other Laws Repeal Act, 2005 (for short "Repeal Act, 2005") and that the respondent Nos. 6 and 8 herein shall continue to decide the cases and
proceedings pending on the date of the said Repeal Act, 2005 and implement the decisions in the said cases under the unrepealed Displaced Persons Compensation & Rehabilitation Act, 1954 and other related Acts.
2. Civil Appeal is disposed of as above. The above order also disposes of Public Interest Litigation No. 52 of 2006 pending before the Bombay High Court. No costs.
Leave granted.
2. We are informed that the State of Punjab has enacted the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Amendment Act, 2009 (for short "2009 Act"). It is further stated that pursuant to the above Act, the concerned persons were permitted to make applications to the competent authority within a period of 90 days from the date of publication of Notification dated 1.4.2009 but the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have not done so.
3. Mr. M.K. Dua, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that applications
pursuant to the 2009 Act were not made since the matter was pending before this Court. He further submits that if now permission is granted, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 will make applications as required under the above Act.
4. We, accordingly, dispose of the Civil Appeal by the following order:
(i) It is open to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to make applications now to the competent authority within 90 days from today under the 2009 Act.
(ii) The concerned authority shall deal and decide such applications expeditiously and preferably within six months from the date of making of such applications.
5. No costs.
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top