1. This is the first judgement of the SC on S24. Within 24 days of the Act. There was an understanding of the principles which were applicable to a construction. 31, 6, 114.

2. Rendered by 3 judges.

3. Issue squarely arose when an application was made because potentially when a reversal if made would have led to an issue.

J. Mishra - We are not deciding the correctness of the judgement.

J. Bhat - We are proceeding on the hypothesis that it would have been set aside.

SD - 1. State would have failed to persuade the Court on merits. The best that could be said about PMC - Please set aside the BHC and restore the acquisition. Even in that, the SC found that as the amount was not deposited, 24(2) applies and the proceedings are deemed to have lapses. The new Act arose because an application was made under it.

J. Saran - There’s no pleadings as such regarding the applicability of the new Act.

SD - I must persuade you on this.

J. Mishra - We are interpreting afresh. We are not bound by an opinion prima facie.

J. Saran - It has a persuasive value. But, we have to see the context.

J. Bhat - 24/1/2008. There had been a period in which they could have paid. But, in December, the acquisition was quashed. Then why would they pay ? They would not have any foresight regarding the coming of the new Act. Nothing in the old Act obliged me to pay then and there.