Procedural law

There can be no two views about the powers of legislature to legislate any law and to make it applicable prospectively or retrospectively or from any particular date, with clear/express intendment in this regard

However the procedural law, even though not expressly provided for, normally holds its applicability retrospectively as no one can claim vested right in the matter of procedure.

Procedural laws govern the mechanisms and methodologies through which substantive rights and obligations are effectuated

This retrospective effect comports with the principle that procedural laws are designed to augment the administration of justice by ensuring that judicial proceedings are conducted with fairness and efficacy.

Outcome of legislation or changes in law that pertain solely to the procedures or legal remedies indicates that if legislation is enacted with the primary intent to alter or modify procedural aspects without prejudicing the rights of the litigants, then no doubt, it will apply to all pending and future actions

Individuals do not possess a vested right in any particular course of procedure, so for all intents and purposes, the change in the law of procedure operates retrospectively

However, laws affecting, curtailing or prejudicing vested rights shall be applied prospectively.

Procedural law should not be construed strictly so as to put the parties to undue inconvenience because the principle object behind all legal formalities is to safeguard the paramount interest of justice

No one should be defeated merely on the basis of technicalities unless offering insurmountable hurdles

Legal technicalities should not be allowed to stand in the way of justice, which may lead to unsettlement and uncertainty of law.

Procedure is a mere device with the object to facilitate and not to obstruct the administration of justice, therefore, to advance the cause of justice, any technical construction of law or rules that leaves no room for reasonable elasticity of interpretation should be guarded against and any construction which reduces the statute to a futility must be avoided.

Procedural law has retrospective effect unless the contrary is provided expressly or impliedly.

Procedural law has retrospective effect unless the contrary is provided expressly or impliedly.

Procedure is a mere device with the object to facilitate and not to obstruct the administration of justice, therefore, to advance the cause of justice, any technical construction of law or rules that leaves no room for reasonable elasticity of interpretation should be guarded against and any construction which reduces the statute to a futility must be avoided.

Procedural rule prescribing the timeframe for doing a certain act in the course of the proceedings of a case should be followed as a rule and the departure therefrom can be made only as an exception in exceptional circumstances beyond the control of the party concerned.

Such laws have to be complied with; otherwise, the judicial system will enter chaos.

Procedural law had retrospective effect unless contrary was provided expressly or impliedly.

Procedural law had retrospective effect unless contrary was provided expressly or impliedly.

Provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, were to be considered liberally and as far as possible, technical objections should not be allowed to defeat substantial justice

Technical construction of sections that leaves no room for reasonable elasticity of interpretation was to be guarded against

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is a body of general law, designed to facilitate justice and it should not be treated as an enactment providing for punishment and penalties

Law of justice should be so constructed as to render justice where reasonably possible

Construction which reduces the statute to a futility has to be avoided

Statute or any enacting provision therein must be so construed as to make it effective and operative

Rules framed in Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, are for advancement of justice and should not, as far as possible, be allowed to operate so as to defeat the ends of justice

Distinction between "substantive law" and "law of procedure" is very narrow one but for the purposes of jurisprudence a distinction is made particularly from the point of view of administration of justice

Procedure is mere machinery and its object is to facilitate and not to obstruct administration of justice.

No provision in the Cr.P.C., existed which specifically barred disposal of appeal against conviction and revision for enhancement of punishment, through common judgment

General rule of law was that whatever was not prohibited, was permissible

Procedural laws were meant to advance the cause of justice; to regulate the court proceedings and not to vest or curtail its power

Laws of procedure were codified to cope with every emerging situation

Whenever the procedural law was silent, and circumstances so demanded, court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, could formulate its procedure, to meet the ends of justice

Disposal of criminal appeal against conviction and criminal revision for enhancement of sentence, through common judgment, was not an illegality or material irregularity, which vitiated the proceedings, so recorded

Appeal was allowed, sentence awarded by appellate court was set aside and that of the Trial Court was restored accordingly.

Order XVIII, Rule 17, C.P.C. was one of the most important stipulation in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and could not be termed as simply procedural in nature and thus a mere technicality.

All procedural laws were meant to foster the cause of justice and not to thwart it as it was more important that substantial compliance of procedural law was made and not its technical observance

Liberal view in procedural matters would save a party from a technical knockout and promote the cause of justice.