Thread by @CiteCase

#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?

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.

https://twitter.com/AdvDhruvin/status/1597113698237435904

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

https://twitter.com/Shuk_law_/status/1597114758850703361

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

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.

https://twitter.com/Shuk_law_/status/1597123827917783040