SHYAM SUNDER AND ANR. versus RAM KUMAR AND ANR.

SHYAM SUNDER AND ANR. versus RAM KUMAR AND ANR.

The substituted Section 15 by Haryana Amendment Act, 1995 does not have retrospective operation, and therefore does not affect the vested right of pre-emption that accrued to the respondent upon passing of the decree by the Trial Court. Subsequent amendments to substantive rights cannot be considered by the appellate court unless expressly made retrospective. The amending Act was neither declaratory nor explanatory, and did not supply omission or ambiguity in the previous law.

Parties
Appellant: Shyam Sunder; Appellant: Anr.; Respondent: Ram Kumar; Respondent: Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
31 July 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Before Supreme Court
Outcome
appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Pre Emption, Retrospective Operation of Statutes, Interpretation of Beneficial Legislation
Property Law Statutory Interpretation Pre Emption Retrospective Operation of Statutes Interpretation of Beneficial Legislation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 31 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shyam Sunder

Appellant

Anr.

Appellant

Ram Kumar

Respondent

Anr.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Before Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the substituted Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act by Haryana Amendment Act, 1995 has retrospective operation and affects the vested right of pre-emption accrued on passing of the decree by the Trial Court.
  2. 2 Whether appellate courts may consider legislative amendments made during appeal that affect vested substantive rights.

Ratio Decidendi

The substituted Section 15 by Haryana Amendment Act, 1995 does not have retrospective operation, and therefore does not affect the vested right of pre-emption that accrued to the respondent upon passing of the decree by the Trial Court. Subsequent amendments to substantive rights cannot be considered by the appellate court unless expressly made retrospective. The amending Act was neither declaratory nor explanatory, and did not supply omission or ambiguity in the previous law.

Court Disposition

appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.