Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904, (Maharashtra) Section 7 - Bare Act

Where this Act, or any Bombay Act ¹[or Maharashtra Act], made after the commencement of this Act, repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not -

(a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect; or

(b) affect the previous operation of the enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or

(c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or

(d) affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any enactment so repealed; or

(e) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid, and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed, as if the repealing Act had not been passed.

NOTES

Effect of Repealed Act.-There is nothing in the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, which in any way is contrary to what is provided in the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904 according to which the effect of a repeal of a Statute is that all pending proceedings are saved from the operation of the Repealing Act.-PhirozTaraporewalla v. Poona Municipal Corporation, I. L. R. 1952 Bom. 617 : AIR 1952 Bom. 283 : 1952 (54) Bom. L. R. 233.

The defendant was in occupation of lands in village Papsoli and was a protected tenant under section 3A of the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939, with effect from 8th November, 1947. But Bombay Act VIII of 1950 included the said village in the area of Greater Bombay, on April 15, 1959.

The extension of limits of Greater Bombay by Act VIII of 1950 did not constitute any implied repeal of the Tenancy Act itself. Therefore, section 7 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904 had no application.-Jasin Tomu Darnel v. Harishchandra Pandurang, I. L. R. 1960 Bom. 172 : 1959 Bom. L. R. 1112; Sakharam Narayan v. Manikchand, 1955 (57) Bom.. L. R. 223 followed.

Repeal of rules when new rules framed.-Framing of new octroi rules would repeal earlier one by necessary implication even though some other rules were repealed specifically.-Swastik Rubber Products Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation for the City of Poona, 1981 (4) SCC 219 : AIR 1981 SC 2022.

When a temporary Act lapses, the rules and orders made thereunder expire.-State of Bombay v. Heman Shantilal, AIR 1952 Bom. 16.

Section 7(1) of the Act would be applicable to the repeal of Poona City Municipal Corporation, rule 5(8) of the Exemption Rules and the consequences stated therein must follow, unless there is something in the repealed rule itself which ends the exemption.-Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation for the City of Poona, 1969 Man. L. J. 832.

Repealed Notification.-It was held that the Notification even if it continued in force because of the application of section 25 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904, extended the Ordinance and not the Act. In the result, the connection made by the State that the Act had been extended to areas other than those mentioned in section 15 of the Bombay Building (Control of Erection) Act, 1948, to the extent the cinema theatres are concerned fail, because the Notification cannot lend any support whatever to it.-State of Bombay v. PandurangVinayak. I. L. R. 1951 Bom. 271 : AIR 1951 Bom. 263 : 52 Bom. L. R. 852 : 1957 Mah. L. R. 65.

Jurisdiction of Civil Court.-It was held that although under section 89 of the Act legal proceedings in respect of vested rights which are instituted after the coming into operation of the Act are still governed by the provisions of the Act, proceedings which were pending at the commencement of the Act are severable from the operation of the Act and the jurisdiction of Civil Courts to try pending suits is not affected by the Act. Dhondi Tukaram v. Han Dadu, I. L. R. 1953 Bom. 959 : AIR 1954 Bom. 100 : (1953) 55 Bom. L. R. 663.

In the instant case, the facts which have given rise to controversy are not in the issue. In view of the Nagpur Bench of the High Court in the case of Sangharsh Kruti Samitiv. State of Maharashtra, 2007 (1) Bom. C.R. 712, the High Court, while applying the law laid down by the Apex Court to the facts of this case held that though the State Government has issued Notification dated 27.2.2002 in supersession of Notification 6.10.1967, however in view of provisions of section 7(c) of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904 the Notification dated 27.2.2002 can only be prospective in nature and would not affect the actions/proceedings initiated prior to issuance of Notification dated 27.2.2002 particularly because the text of said Notification does not indicate that it operates retrospectively.

Repeal of Bombay Rent Act whether affects rights incurred thereunder.-Under section 7 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, rights under Bombay Rent Act do not get affected unless there is specific provision to the effect under the repealing Act.-Dhanrqj Bhuddsingh Gupta v. Dinesh Purushottam, 2002 (6) Bom. C.R. 409 : 2002 (3) Mah. L.J. 666 : 2002 (3) Bom. L.R. 892; See also Soamchand Sakharia v. Singh Light House, 2002 (Supp.) Bom. C.R. 658.

__________________________________

1. These words were Inserted by Maharashtra Adaptation of Laws (State and Concurrent Subjects) Order, 1960.