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

1996 Supreme(MP) 843

SHACHEENDRA DWIVEDI, FAKHRUDDIN
United India Insurance Co. – Appellant
Versus
Mahila Ramshree – Respondent


Advocates:
J.D. Suryawanshi for appellant; N.D. Singhal for respondents.

ORDER

Fakhruddin, J. -- 1. This matter has been placed before us pursuant to the orders passed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice to consider the question :--

"Whether a separate Notification even after Notification No. S. O. 368 (E) dated 22.5.89, was required to be issued on a separate date for State of Madhya Pradesh was required to be notified for the applicability of the Act to the State of Madhya Pradesh in view of section 3 of the Act." (There appears to be a typographical error. It should be section 1 (3) of the Act). Sub-section (3) of section 1 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is relevant and is quoted below :--

"(3) It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, appoint; and different dates may be appointed for different States and any reference in this Act to the commencement of this Act shall, in relation to a State, be construed as a reference to the coming into force of this Act in that State."

2. The Central Government issued a notification in exercise of powers conferred under sub-section (3) of section 1 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and appointed 1st of July 1989 as the date on which the Act shall come into force.














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