Mary Roy Case: Retrospective or Prospective? A Deep Dive

2025 0 Supreme(Cal) 501

The said Rana Roy, grandson challenged the rejection of his case by W.P. 1447 (W) of 2018. ... or whether it is a substantive amendment which is intended to change the law and which would apply prospectively.” ... The facts of the case are that one Bishnu Kumar Roy was an existing FPS licence holder, who died on 4th October, 2015. The legal heirs of the said Bishnu Kumar Roy were Nirod Baran Roy, Aparna Banerjee and Parbati Chatterjee. ... By the imp....

The issue before the court is the retrospective applicability of a judgment as opposed to the retrospective applicability of a statutory amendment. None of the parties to the instant application were parties to the Rasu judgment. ... The issue before this Court is about the applicability of a judgment retrospectively This discussion brings up an interesting question in the form that whether the said determination of the Supreme Court has retrospective effect on t....

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 45969

2002 KHC 634 ], this Court had considered the subsequent suit filed by Mary Roy for partition, from which it is evident that the succession in the above case opened only on 18.12.1960 and therefore, the ratio decidendi in Mary Roy (1986 (2) SCC 209) will not apply ... The litigation between Mary Roy and her siblings reached this Court in Mary Roy v. Susie Issac [ 2002 KHC 634 ]. ... Therefore, based on the declaration of l....

2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2458

2002 KHC 634 ], this Court had considered the subsequent suit filed by Mary Roy for partition, from which it is evident that the succession in the above case opened only on 18.12.1960 and therefore, the ratio decidendi in Mary Roy (1986 (2) SCC 209) will not apply to ... According to him, the principles laid down in Mary Roy (supra) will squarely apply in the present case. He further pointed out that, from the pleadings in the written statement filed....

2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2568

[2002 KHC 634] , this Court had considered the subsequent suit filed by Mary Roy for partition, from which it is evident that the succession in the above case opened only on 18.12.1960 and therefore, the ratio decidendi in Mary Roy (1986 (2) SCC 209) will not apply ... Therefore, based on the declaration of law, Mary Roy had to necessarily file a suit for partition. In fact, a suit for partition was filed before the Sub Court, Kottayam as O.S.No.323/....

2022 0 Supreme(UK) 264

In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court held that when the Supreme Court declares a law the same will have retrospective effect .Taking note of the case of P.V. ... The question now arises whether such declaration of law shall be prospective in operation or retrospective in operation. In this connection, we take into consideration the following rulings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court: In the case of M.A. Murthy vs. ... Whether the imp....

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 55458

This Court held that the conflict regarding the applicability of the Indian Succession Act was laid to rest by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its decision in Mary Roy (Supra). ... In fact, mother died after the Supreme Court declared the law in Mary Roy's case. In Rosamma and others v. Annamma Francis and others [ Mary Roy v. State of Kerala [1986 KLT 508]. ... This Court held that the view of the trial court that such an argument cannot be accepte....

2017 0 Supreme(Ker) 738

The applicability of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 to all Indian Christians as defined in Section 2(d) thereof is settled by the decision in Mary Roy v. State of Kerala [AIR 1986 SC 1011]. To quote from the above: ... "5. ... From the very nature of the case, a custom cannot exclude the applicability of the provisions of a particular statute. But a statute can do it. ... We have no hesitation to hold that the above decisions of the Division Bench on the right of a Christian priest or nun over his/her ....

2003 0 Supreme(Ker) 186

The contention of the appellant that by reason of the law declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Mary Roy, the Indian Act would govern the parties must therefore fail. An ancillary argument was that statutory law replaced the customary law of succession viz., Hindu Mitakshara Law. ... The limited question that was decided in Mary Roy's case, was whether the Travancore Act or any part thereof survived after th....

2025 0 Supreme(Bom) 1720

The purpose of an Explanation clause, as the term itself suggests, is merely to explain the applicability of the Section to which it is appended. It is trite law that an Explanation clause neither expands nor restricts the meaning of a Section. 25. ... Thus, in all other cases which do not fall within (a) to (e) of the Explanation, the Courts would have to, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case, determine whether ‘just cause’ is made out. ... (III) Whether the judgment....

2018 0 Supreme(All) 614

A fresh game starts here, and it can be played on the basis of rules already changed before its commencement. Law relating to retrospective application of rules, as have been cited before this Court, will have no applicability in the present case. To cancel the recruitment and to undertake it afresh, on the basis of rules amended is not the same as retrospectively applying the recruitment rules.

Current Civil Cases

4. After due consideration of the two contradictory views expressed by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court as aforesaid, the learned Single Judge observed: “It is to be noticed that in the case of Hema @ Hemlata (supra), the question with regard to the retrospective applicability of the Act was singularly raised. However, the said issue was not raised directly in the case of Khushi Mohd.

2013 0 Supreme(Raj) 312

4. After due consideration of the two contradictory views expressed by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court as aforesaid, the learned Single Judge observed: However, the said issue was not raised directly in the case of Khushi Mohd. “It is to be noticed that in the case of Hema @ Hemlata (supra), the question with regard to the retrospective applicability of the Act was singularly raised.

2005 0 Supreme(Raj) 1199

Ramzan Khans case (Supra), and the benefit thereof could not be given in favour of the respondent. Ramzan Khans case AIR 1991 SC 471 and also referred the fact that the decision in Mohd. Ramzan Khans case (Supra), has no retrospective applicability. The matter has been decided before the decision of Mohd.

2005 0 Supreme(Raj) 1225

Ramzan Khans case (Supra) and the benefit thereof could not be given in favour of the respondent. Ramzan Khans case (Supra), has no retrospective applicability. Ramzan Khans case (AIR 1991 SC 471) and also referred the fact that the decision in Mohd. The matter has been decided before the decision of Mohd.