Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MARAS
M Ayyar, Parker
Rama Rau And Anr
Versus
Chellayamma
Decided On : 30 April, 1891
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.
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.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
