Repeal and savings

Related judgements & precedents

These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.

1. Neena Aneja vs Jai Prakash Associates LTD

   Supreme Court of India 16 Mar 2021 Binding (Supreme Court) Reportable

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   Section 107(1) repeals the 1986 Act, but section 107(2) saves the previous operation of the repealed Act and section 107(3) preserves the general application of section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897; the right to pursue a complaint validly instituted under the 1986 Act is a right accrued under clause (c) of section 6 and the proceeding to enforce it is protected by clause (e), so consumer complaints filed before 20 July 2020 continue before the forum in which they were instituted and are not to be transferred to match the enhanced pecuniary limits of the 2019 Act.

   On this section: Construes all three sub-sections of section 107 and settles the transitional question the section raises: proceedings pending on the repeal date are governed by the old Act, and the National Commission was wrong to dismiss a pre-commencement complaint for want of pecuniary jurisdiction under the new Act.

   Read the full order on eCourts India

2. Regional Cancer Center vs Kerala State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission

   High Court 13 Aug 2021 Persuasive (High Court, Division Bench)

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   Following Neena Aneja on the legislative intendment of section 107 and its interplay with section 6 of the General Clauses Act, the Court held that a right of appeal or revision vests when the lis is initiated and survives the repeal, so a party to a proceeding begun under the 1986 Act must pursue the revisional remedy under section 21(b) of that Act rather than the appellate route (and deposit condition) of the 2019 Act; the writ appeal was dismissed for availability of that alternative remedy.

   On this section: Extends the savings in section 107 from the original complaint to the appellate and revisional remedies attached to it, holding those remedies continue under the repealed Act.

   Read the full order on eCourts India

3. Orris Infrastructure Private Limited vs National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission

   High Court 04 May 2021 Persuasive (High Court, Single Bench)

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   Reading section 107(2) as a non obstante saving that does not cover the whole field, and section 107(3) as attracting section 6 of the General Clauses Act, the Court held that orders passed by the National Commission after the 1986 Act was repealed on 20 July 2020 but before the National Commission was established under section 53 on 11 January 2021, in complaints instituted under the 1986 Act, are not coram non judice; the writ challenging such orders as void was dismissed in limine.

   On this section: Applies section 107(2) and (3) to the gap between repeal and re-establishment of the fora, holding that the savings in this section keep the old fora competent to decide complaints already before them.

   Read the full order on eCourts India

The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.