| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1960 SLG 186 1960 SLD 186 1960 PLD 991 |
Dacca High Court
Civil Revisions Nos. 742 and 744 of 1959, decision Dated: 25-02-1960.
RAHMAN, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Abdul Hakim for Azizuddin Ahmad
Respondent(s) by: B. C. Das and Md. Behtar Ali
Civil Revisions Nos. 742 and 744 of 1959, decision Dated: 25-02-1960.
RAHMAN, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Abdul Hakim for Azizuddin Ahmad
Respondent(s) by: B. C. Das and Md. Behtar Ali
RAMDAYAL MIRDHA
VS
NAGENDRA NATH BAIN AND OTHERS
Law: Bengal General Clauses Act, 1899
Section: 8
Law: General Clauses Act, 1897
Section: 6
Bengal General Clauses Act (I of 1899), S. 8 Repeal of temporary law before date of expiry by efflux of time Pro¬ceedings commenced may be continued irrespective of repeal¬-Provisions of section applicable unless repealing statute shows contrary intention General Clauses Act (X of1897), S. 6. If a temporary law scheduled to expire at a certain period of time is repealed before it had actually expired by efflux of time, section 8 of the Bengal General Clauses Act, 1899 would apply to such a repeal in the same manner as it will apply to the repeal of a permanent statute unless the repealing statute shows a contrary intention. Normally, of course, the continuance of proceedings commenced under such a temporary law would only extend up to the date on which the law was due to expire, for, the effect of the provisions of clause (e) of section 8 of the Act is to save and not to add or enact anything new but merely to preserve proceedings so that they might be continued under it by excluding the operation of the repeal. There can be no other effect of deeming the repeal¬ing law as not having been passed. The general rule, however, is that unless some special pro¬visions to the contrary are contained in the repealing law a temporary law ceases to have any further effect after it has expired and no proceedings can be taken under it any longer and the proceedings already taken and pending terminate ultimately as soon as it expires. Piare Dusadh and others v. Emperor A I R 1944 F C 1 ; Muhammad Irtiza and others v. The State P L D 1959 Kar. 94 and S. A. Seshadri Aiyangar v. Narayan Nair A I R 1950 Mad. 106 ref. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: RAHMAN, JUSTICE---.--- These three applications in revision are directed against three orders of the learned Additional District Judge of Barisal passed in three revision cases under section 53 of the Public Demands Recovery Act which were originally filed before the Additional Collector of Revenue, Bakerganj, and were later transferred to the. Court of the District Judge, Bakerganj, for disposal under the provisions, as mentioned by the learned Additional District Judge, of Ordinance No. XI of 1958. 2. The said revision cases filed…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492