Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MARAS
Sri Raja Row Venkatakumara
Versus
Rajah Row Chellayyamma Garu,
Decided On : 30 April, 1891
Section 4, Act VII of 1889 - Interpretation of applicability to pending applications
Fact of the Case:
The court considered the applicability of Section 4, 01. (b), Act VII of 1889 to pending applications for decree execution.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that Section 4 does not apply to pending applications but refers to applications made after the Act came into force. The court also relied on Section 6 of the General Clauses Act to support the non-retrospective effect of the Act on pending proceedings.
Issues: Interpretation of Section 4, Act VII of 1889 and its applicability to pending applications
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the language of the Act and relied on the General Clauses Act to determine the non-retrospective effect of the Act on pending proceedings.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.
1. We are of opinion that Section 4, 01. (b), 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 Clauses Act prima facie, the Ac cannot affect pending proceedings. If the legislature intended to give retrospective effect to the section, the language would have clearly indicated it.
3. The same view has been taken by the Bombay High Court in Balubhai Dayabhai v. Nasar Bai Abdul Habib Fazly. We dismiss the appeal with costs.
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
