The Calcutta Weekly Notes Monday January 10 1944

before the Federal Court the argument on behalf of the Appellant was the following. [...] The Court does take note of the fact that the Bengal statute does not simply operate on decrees but provides for the re-opening of the decree and passing a new one in stead. [...] Once a decree is re-opened the old decree disappears and when the Court sets about passing a new decree the Act debars it from passing it in accordance with the note which it would otherwise be bound to do but compels it to pass the decree in accordance with the Act. [...] If in a case decided after the Act the Court allows iterest in accordance with its provisions in stead of in accordance with the stipulations contained in the promissory note it inteferes with the rights and liabilities of the parties under the note exactly in the same way as it does when it re-opens a pre-Act decree and passes a new one. [...] We may be pardoned for saying that since the decisions of the Privy Council are as they must be the fountain-head of the principles that have to be applied in the interpretation of the Constitution Act it would be better if those classics of case-law were fully and directly discussed.