Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-25-1991
Reported in : 43(1991)DLT394; 1991(20)DRJ236
..... : 1951crilj680 , the question that arose for consideration was as to whether art. 13(1) of the constitution of india has a retrospective operation. art. 13(1) declared that all laws in force in the territory of india which are inconsistent with the provisions of the fundamental rights to be void to the extent of inconsistency. ..... any question arises, the authority to determine such question shall, for the purpose of section 9(2), be the central government. thus, section 9 of the citizenship act, 1955 applied to pending suits as well in the light of its language and the rules framed there under. (51) mr.arwaha also referred ( ..... 9(2) and rule 30. section 9(2) provided that if any question arises as to whether, when and how any person has acquired the citizenships of another country, it shall be determined by such authority ?'n such manner and having regard to such rules of evidence as may be prescribed in ..... was a case of procedural law.such law would operate retrospectively to all actions after they came into force. (50) mr. marwaha further cited a ease on the citizenship act, 1955. the came is state of u.p. v. shah mohanimad 0065/1969 : 3scr1006 . la that case, the plaintiff had gone to ..... no jurisdiction to decide the question arisen in the; suit in view of section 9 of the citizenship act which had been passed during the pendency of the proceedings read with rule 30 of the citizenship rules, 1956. the high court framed the issue and remitted the case to lower appellate court. .....Tag this Judgment!