CiteCase Profile picture
Nov 28 7 tweets 4 min read
#Query

MV Act amendment saying no MACT claim can lie after 6 months of accident came into force on 1st April 2022. Is this bar applicable to claims arising out of accidents that occurred prior to 1 April 2022? In other words, does the amendment has retrospective application? Image
Since the amendment came into force only six months ago, we believe that caselaws on the issue of retrospective application is only at a developing stage. But what we feel is that the limitation introduced through an amendment cannot be given retrospective effect.
For an illustration : Opposite party can file his written version to a consumer complaint within 30+15 days. He did not file it till 35 days. On 36th day, an amendment came into force saying, written version has to be filed within 15+15 days. Will this apply to this complaint?
As @AdvDhruvin points out, the Supreme Court in CIT vs Vatika Township P.Ltd , indiankanoon.org/doc/35745659/ has discussed General Principles concerning retrospectivity and supports this view taken by us above.

However, as @Shuk_law_ , points out, it is a settled that procedural law has to be given retrospective effect, unless there is a contrary intention in the Statute. So there can be argument that limitation, being procedural law, this principle has to apply
But to get over this contention, one can rely on a full bench judgment of Rajasthan HC which held that a new law of limitation cannot be construed retrospectively so as to destroy altogether the remedy of litigant. indiankanoon.org/doc/1701464/ Govt. vs Sangram Singh AIR 1962 Raj 43 Image
Further, this judgment of the SC can also be referred as an authority on the point that right of action and right of appeal is substantive and therefore to be treated as vested rights.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with CiteCase

CiteCase Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @CiteCase

Nov 30
Criminal case From FIR to Conviction.

154 -FIR registered
157 -Investigation begins
173(2) -Final Report is filed before Magistrate
190(1)(b) - Magistrate takes cognizance
204 -Warrant/summons issued to accused
207 - Copy of police report, documents supplied to accused
209 -Magistrate commits case to Sessions Court
226 - Prosecution case opening
227 -Discharge denied because there is sufficient ground for proceeding
228 - Charge framed
229 - Pleaded not guilty
230/231 -Prosecution evidence
232 -Not acquiited because there is sufficient evidence
233-Defence evidence
234- Arguments by both prosecution and defence
235- Prosecution proved case beyond reasonable doubt - so judgment of conviction.

A lawyer/law student should not forget these stages of a criminal case (which is exclusively triable by sessions)
Read 6 tweets
Nov 30
#Query #Jallikattu

Do animals have fundamental right ?

#Analysis

In our view, animals have several statutory rights, but no fundamental rights, though there are a few judgments which stops short of saying this.
If humans are entitled to fundamental rights, why not animals?, the Kerala High Court had observed in N.R. Nair And Ors., Etc. Etc. vs Union Of India AIR 2000 Ker 340 indiankanoon.org/doc/936999/ Image
Supreme Court in Animal Welfare Board Of India vs A. Nagaraja observed that Statutory rights available to animals have to be elevated to the status of fundamental rights.. as to secure their honour and dignity. indiankanoon.org/doc/39696860/ Image
Read 6 tweets
Nov 29
#Query

Caselaws which say that scope of Section 37 Arbitration Act is very narrow and limited like Section 34

#Analysis

Since S 37 is an appeal against the order passed in S 34 proceedings, it goes without saying that the scope of S 37 cannot be wider than S 34.
In fact, the Delhi HC in Movie Times Cineplex Pvt Ltd vs MRG Developers Pvt Ltd livelaw.in/pdf_upload/mug… held that the scope of judicial scrutiny and interference by an appellate court
under Section 37 is even more restricted, than while deciding a
petition under Section 34 Image
Delhi HC (DB) has also observed that under Section 37 , the extent of judicial scrutiny and scope of interference is further narrower (than Section 34) 202(2013) DLT 218 Jhang Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd vs Pt. Munshi Ram And Associates Pvt Ltd. indiankanoon.org/doc/174393399/ Image
Read 4 tweets
Nov 28
#Query #LearnCPC

In appeal against order of rejection of plaint, the plaintiff-appellant files an application before the Appellate Court seeking amendment of plaint? Can this application be allowed at the appellate stage?

Vote here t.me/learncpc/12 Image
The basic question which needs to be answered first is whether an amendment of plaint can be permitted at appellate stage? This issue is fairly settled in view of the expression 'at any stage of proceedings' in O VI R 17. This has been interpreted to include appellate stage. Image
On this point, i.e whether a plaint can be allowed to be amended at the appellate Stage, the Kerala HC has held that Appellate Court can allow amendments to the pleadings, even at the appellate stage, notwithstanding the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC. indiankanoon.org/doc/119860392/
Read 9 tweets
May 31
World No-Tobacco Day.

In K Ramakrishnan vs State Of Kerala AIR1999Ker385, the Kerala HC made public smoking illegal. indiankanoon.org/doc/1480636/

In Murli S Deora vs UoI AIR 2002 SC 40, SC directed State/UTs to ensure prohibiting smoking in public places indiankanoon.org/doc/1495522/
" Smokers dig not only their own graves prematurely but also pose a serious threat to the lives of lakhs of innocent nonsmokers... "

-Kerala High Court in K Ramakrishnan vs State Of Kerala AIR 1999 Ker 385

indiankanoon.org/doc/1480636/
".. There is no reason that health of passive smokers should also be injuriously affected. In any case, there is no reason to compel non-smokers to be helpless victims of air pollution."

- Supreme Court in Murli S Deora vs UoI AIR 2002 SC 40 indiankanoon.org/doc/1495522/
Read 5 tweets
Oct 21, 2021
Absconder/Proclaimed Offender Not Entitled To Anticipatory Bail: Supreme Court

Prem Shankar Prasad vs. State Of Bihar | LL 2021 SC 579 | CrA 1209 OF 2021 | 21 October 2021 | Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna

via @LiveLawIndia

livelaw.in/top-stories/su…
Specific Role Of Accused Not Required To Be Stated In Order Granting Prior Approval U/s 24(1)(a) KCOCA : Supreme Court

Kavitha Lankesh v. State of Karnataka | LL 2021 SC 578 |SLP(Diary) 13309 OF 2021 | 21 October 2021 |

livelaw.in/top-stories/su…
Explanation to Order XXI Rule 16 CPC removed the distinction between an assignment pre-the decree and an assignment post the decree : Supreme Court

Vaishno Devi Construction vs. Union of India | LL 2021 SC 580 | CA 18278 OF 2017 | 21 October 2021

livelaw.in/top-stories/su…
Read 12 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(