Retroative legislation
Retroative legislation legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Retroactive legislation was looked upon with disfavour, as a general rule, and properly so because of its tendency to be unjust and oppressive
In the absence of any indication in the statute that the Legislature intended for it to operate retroactively, it must not be given retrospective effect
Where a statute however, was procedural, declaratory or explanatory or where a statute was passed for the purpose of supply an obvious omission in a former statute, it was to operative retrospectively obviously because it did not affect vested rights.
Retroactive legislation was looked upon with disfavour, as a general rule, and properly so because of its tendency to be unjust and oppressive
In the absence of any indication in the statute that the Legislature intended for it to operate retroactively, it must not be given retrospective effect
Where a statute however, was procedural, declaratory or explanatory or where a statute was passed for the purpose of supplying an obvious omission in a former statute, it was to operate retrospectively obviously because it did not affect vested rights.
Retroactive legislation was looked upon with disfavour, as a general rule, and properly so because of its tendency to be unjust and oppressive
In the absence of any indication in the statute that the Legislature intended for it to operate retroactively, it must not be given retrospective effect
Where a statute however, was procedural, declaratory or explanatory or where a statute was passed for the purpose of supplying an obvious omission in a former statute, it was to operate retrospectively obviously because it did not affect vested rights.
"Retroative legislation", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124944377
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Retroative legislation"
P L D 2014 Lahore 72
COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE ZONE-II, REGINAL TAX OFFICE, MULTAN — Appellant Versus Mrs. AMBREEN FAWAD C/O PAK ARAB FERTILIZERS LIMITED, MULTAN — Respondent
Court: High Court2014 C L D 272
COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE ZONE-II, REGIONAL TAX OFFICE, MULTAN — Appellant Versus Mrs. AMBREEN FAWAD C/O PAK ARAB FERTILIZERS LIMITED, MULTAN — Respondent
Court: LahoreP L D 1966 (W
S. RIAZ-UD-DIN AHMED — Petitioner Versus CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE
Court: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Arts. 224(1), 225(1), 131 (1) & 29--Whether Central Legislature or President, could legislate so as to give retrospective effect to legislation beyond 8-6-62, i.e. date on which Constitution came into force-- Whether amendment of S. 31, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 by Displaced Persons Laws Amendment Ordinance (XVIII of 1965) could not be given retrospective effect beyond 8-6-62-Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 31 as amended by Displaced Persons Laws Amendment Ordinance (XVIII of 1965).P L D 1974 Karachi 254
MESSRS DADA LTD., KARACHI‑ — Plaintiffs Versus SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN,
Court: ---S. 7‑Provisions of S. 7 operative to legalise retrospectively levy of price differential surcharge‑Surcharge levied and collected in pursu ance of Notification No. S. R. O. 49 (R)/66 dated 23‑4‑66 and Public Notice dated 25‑4‑66‑Validated by S. 7‑Rules for assessment and collection of price equalization surcharge‑Not condition precedent to exercise of powers conferred under pct for ascertainment of price equalization surcharge and its recovery‑Adamjee Jute Mills Ltd. v, Controller of Imports & Exports P L D 1968 Dacca 894 dissented from.1990 P T D 29
CRESCENT PAK. INDUSTRIES (Pvt.) LIMITED Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others
Court: Karachi High CourtP L D 1964 Supreme Court 494
Sheikh FAZAL AHMAD‑Appellant Versus Raja ZIAULLAH KHAN AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
Court: (b) Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act (III of' 1956) as amended by Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) (Amendment) Ordinance (LXXX of 1962), S. 7 (4)‑P L D 1970 Quetta 27
Syed MUHAMMAD AZIM AND 5 OTHERS — Petitioners Versus THE STATE AND 5 OTHERS‑Respondents
Court:1984 C L C 3111
LAHORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION‑Appellant Versus Mian MUHAMMAD RAFI‑Respondent
Court: LahoreP L D 1957 (W
KARACHI PANJRAPORE ASSOCIATION -Petitioner Versus CUSTODIAN. EVACUEE PROPERTY and another Respondents
Court:P L D 2021 Sindh 515
Syed GHULAM MOHIUDDIN and another — Petitioners Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through Chief Secretary and 2 others — Respondents
Court: High Court