Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Air India LTD. VS Union Of India...
1995 0 Supreme(SC) 733 : A ''''saving'''' is a provision the intention of which is to narrow the effect of the enactment to which it refers so as to preserve some existing legal rule or right from its operation. It is often included to resolve doubts about whether existing rights or privileges should survive the repeal of a statute. The repeal of an enactment does not, unless the contrary intention appears, affect any right or privilege accrued under that enactment. For subordinate legislation to survive the repeal of its parent statute, the repealing statute must expressly preserve it, either by stating so in so many words or by mentioning the title of the subordinate legislation. Implied preservation is not permitted.Checking relevance for Agricultural And Processed Food Products: Union Of India VS Oswal Agro Furane LTD. ...
Checking relevance for Southern Petrochemical Industries Co. LTD. VS Electricity Inspector and E. T. I. O. ...
2007 0 Supreme(SC) 757 : A saving clause is a legislative provision intended to ensure that the repeal of an Act does not affect anything duly done or suffered under the repealed law. The object of such a clause is to preserve the validity of actions or legal consequences that were completed or occurred under the pre-existing law before the repeal took effect. This means that the pre-existing law continues to govern matters that were already settled prior to the repeal date. The expression ''''things done'''' in a saving clause is interpreted comprehensively to include not only the acts themselves but also the legal consequences flowing from those acts.Checking relevance for State Of Punjab VS Harnek Singh...
Checking relevance for Pune Municipal Corporation VS Sus Road Baner Vikas Manch...
Checking relevance for MANISH KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA...
Checking relevance for Shakuntala Gurung VS State of Sikkim...
Checking relevance for State Of Kerala Vs Pramod A.d S/o. A.r. Dayasingh...
2025 Supreme(KER) 943 : In service law, the ''''saving clause'''' does not exempt appointees under earlier rules (such as the 1962 Rules or 2010 Rules) from acquiring newly prescribed qualifications for promotion. The clause only protects the rights of such appointees in relation to their existing appointments and does not extend to allowing promotions without fulfilling the qualifications in force at the time of promotion consideration. The court emphasized that the qualifications required for promotion are determined by the rules in force on the date of promotion consideration, not at the time of appointment. The saving clause cannot be interpreted to override this requirement or to allow promotions without the prescribed qualifications.Checking relevance for Abdul Ahad Azim VS Union of India...
2024 0 Supreme(Del) 494 : A saving clause in service law refers to a provision in a repealing statute that preserves certain rights, obligations, or legal positions that existed under the repealed law. It ensures that rights which have already accrued under the old law are not extinguished merely because a new statute has been enacted. The principle is that rights accrued under the old law are saved unless they are expressly taken away. This is supported by Section 6(c) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and affirmed by the Supreme Court in cases such as Bansidhar v. State of Rajasthan and IT Commissioner v. Shah Sadiq & Sons, which hold that a saving clause is not exhaustive—rights not expressly saved are still protected if they have accrued. The clause operates to maintain legal continuity, particularly in pending cases or ongoing proceedings, ensuring that the repeal of an old law does not nullify existing rights or liabilities.Checking relevance for Pragyan Foundation, a Public Charitable Trust VS State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary...
Checking relevance for Sanjit Kar S/o Shyama Pada Kar VS State Of AP represented through Public Prosecutor...
Checking relevance for Jethmal VS Ambsingh...
Checking relevance for Ganpat VS Ram Devi...
Checking relevance for Ali M. K. VS State Of Kerala...
Checking relevance for Kolhapur Canesugar Works LTD. VS Union Of India...
Checking relevance for P. S. Sathappan (Dead) By Lrs. VS Andhra Bank LTD. ...
Checking relevance for Haryana State F. C. C. W. Store LTD. VS Ram Niwas...
Checking relevance for K A ABRAHAM VS GENERAL MANAGER BHILAI STEEL PLANT HINDUSTAN STEEL PVT LTD...
1978 0 Supreme(MP) 42 : A saving clause in service law refers to a provision in Standing Orders that attempts to preserve pre-existing rights, benefits, or conditions of service (such as longer leave benefits) for existing employees under previous rules or contracts, even after the introduction of new Standing Orders. However, such clauses are considered invalid and unenforceable because they undermine the principle of uniformity in the application of Standing Orders, which must apply equally to all employees—existing and future. The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, requires that Standing Orders be uniform and not allow for special benefits to existing employees that would create inconsistency. Therefore, a saving clause that preserves rights under prior rules or awards is not permissible and cannot be given effect to.
![Director, CSIR-CIMFR [Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research] VS Mayuresh Dash, S/o. Sri Rabindra Kumar Dash - 2024 Supreme(Jhk) 43](https://supremetoday-s3.b-cdn.net/Jharkhand_small_3.png)
