Landmark Judgments on Banking Laws by the SC and HC’s in 2022 (RDDB, SARFAESI, RBI, BRA Enactments) Part II
by Siddharth R. Gupta† and Prakriti††
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 29
retrospective
Pensionary benefit to “part time tube well operators” cannot be granted from date of granting pay parity with regular operators; Allahabad High Court reiterates
Article 14 of the Constitution of India has withstood the temperts of classification and discrimination, but the emerging disparity to regulate the condition of pension as a result of service ought not to obliterate the object of equality in a level playing field.
Delhi High Court quashes confiscation proceedings against Satyender Jain under Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988
Delhi High Court: In a batch of petitions filed assailing proceedings initiated by the respondent- State under the Prohibition of
Supreme Court holds private school teachers entitled to gratuity; upholds Constitutional validity of Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2009
“When the legislature acts within its power to usher in a valid law and rectify a legal error, even after a court ruling, the legislature exercises its constitutional power to enact the law and does not overrule an earlier court decision.”
Explained| Retroactive, True Retroactivity, Quasi-retroactivity, and Retrospective: Synonymous or distinct?
“Merely because a law operates on certain circumstances which are antecedent to its passing does not mean that it is retrospective.”
‘Thin line between adjudication and legislation’; Delhi High Court rules out retrospective application of Commercial Courts (Amendment) Act, 2018
Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of Satish Chandra Sharma, CJ and Subramonium Prasad, J. refused to transfer the civil suits pending
Income Tax| If such orders continued to be passed, we will impose substantial costs on Assessing Officer which will be recovered from his/her salary: Read why SC stayed Bombay HC’s order
Supreme Court: The Division Bench comprising of M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ., stayed the impugned order of Bombay High Court wherein
Clarification vis-à-vis substantial alteration of commercial agreement; SC considers legality of retrospective application of modifications in agreement
Supreme Court: The Division Bench comprising of Ajay Rastogi* and Abhay S. Oka, JJ., held that a modification changing tariff for inadvertent
SC-ST Act is prospective or retrospective? Kar HC quashes criminal proceedings for offences committed in the year 1975
Karnataka High Court: Krishna S Dixit J. quashes the criminal proceedings as the SC-ST act is not retrospective in nature. The petitioners
Proviso to Section 113 of Income Tax Act, 1961 not clarificatory or retrospective in nature
Supreme Court: The 5-judge bench of R.M. Lodha, CJ and J.S. Khehar, J. Chelameswar, Dr. A.K. Sikri and R.F. Nariman deciding the