SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1978 Supreme(MP) 29

H.G.MISHRA
MANGILAL – Appellant
Versus
REGISTERED FIRM MITTILAL-RADHEYLAL RASTOGI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.M.AGARWAL, R.S.SAXENA

H. G. MISHRA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a revision preferred by the defendant-applicants against order dated 10-12-1977 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Gwalior, passed in small Cause Suit No. 70/ 1976, whereby it has been held that the Madhya pradesh Anusuchit Janjati Rini Sahayata Adhiniyam (12 of 1967) is not applicable, because the loan sought to be recovered on the basis of a bond dated 5-5-1974 was not subsisting on the appointed date.

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicants Shri B. S. Saxena has raised the following contentions:- (

i) That although the debt sought to be recovered is alleged to have been advanced on the basis of a bond dated 5-5-1974, yet by virtue of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment)Act, 1976 (No. 108 of 1976) assented to by the President on 18th Sept. 1976 published in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary) Part II, section 1 dated 20-9-1976, the appointed date will be deemed to be the date of publication of the aforesaid Amendment Act and, as such, the applicants are entitled to the benefit of the Act No. 12 of 1967. (ii) That the aforesaid Amendment Act No. 108/1976 should be deemed to be retrospective in effect, Therefore,


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top