Back
1891 Supreme(Mad) 39
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MARAS
M Ayyar, Parker
Rama Rau And Anr
Versus
Chellayamma
Decided On : 30 April, 1891
The main legal point established in the judgment is that Section 4, Clause (6), Act VII of 1889 does not apply to pending applications to execute decrees.
Headnote:
Section 4 - Act VII of 1889 - The court held that Section 4, Clause (6), Act VII of 1889 does not apply to applications to execute decrees which were pending at the date of the passing of the Act, but refers to applications made after the Act came into force. The court also emphasized that under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, prima facie, the Act cannot affect pending proceedings, and if the Legislature intended to give retrospective effect to the section, the language would have clearly indicated it. The court cited the Bombay High Court's decision in Balubhai Dayabhai v. Nasar Bin Abdul Habib Fazly I.L.R., 15 Bom., 79 to support this view.
Fact of the Case:
The court considered the applicability of Section 4, Clause (6), Act VII of 1889 to applications to execute decrees pending at the date of the passing of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that Section 4, Clause (6), Act VII of 1889 does not apply to pending applications and emphasized the principles under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act.
Issues: The main issue was the interpretation of Section 4, Clause (6), Act VII of 1889 and its applicability to pending applications to execute decrees.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 4, Clause (6), Act VII of 1889 and the principles under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act.
Final Decision: The court held that Section 4, Clause (6), Act VII of 1889 does not apply to pending applications to execute decrees.
1. We are of opinion that Section 4, Clause (6), Act VII of 1889 does not apply to applications to execute decrees which were pending at the date of the passing of the Act, but refers to applications made after the Act came into force.
2. Under Section 6 of the General Glauses Act prima facie, the Act cannot affect pending proceedings. If the Legislature intended to give retrospective effect to the section, the language would have dearly indicated it.
3. The same view has been taken by the Bombay High Court in Balubhai Dayabhai v. Nasar Bin Abdul Habib Fazly I.L.R., 15 Bom., 79.
