3942; Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. Amrit Lal & Co., (2001) 8 SCC 397, 412 : AIR 2001 SC 3580, 3589] .” (AC p. 922) The Lord Chancellor's (Lord Herschell's) observations in an earlier Privy Council case, that “mere right to take advantage of an enactment without any act done by an individual towards availing himself of that right cannot property be deemed a right accrued [Abbott v. Minister for lands, 1895 AC 425, 431 : 72 LT 113 (PC)] ”, are not to be understood as supporting the view that if steps are taken under a statute for acquiring a right, the right accrues even if the steps taken do not reach the stage when the right is given [Director of Public Works v. Ho Po Sang, 1961 AC 901 : (1961) 3 WLR 39 : (1961) 2 All ER 721, 732, 733 (PC)] , nor do the said observations support the view that if no steps are taken for enforcement of a right come into existence, the right is not an accrued right [Sakharam v. Manikchand Motichand Shah, AIR 1963 SC 354, 356, 357 : (1962) 2 SCR 59. See further Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd. v. Haridas Mundhra, (1972) 3 SCC 684, 693 : AIR 1972 SC 1826, 1832; Lalji Raja & Sons v. Hansraj Nathuram, (1971) 1 SCC 721, 728 : AIR 1971 SC 974, 979; Zohrabi v. Arjuna, (1980) 2 SCC 203, 204 : AIR 1980 SC 101, 102; Kanaya Ram v. Rajender Kumar, (1985) 1 SCC 436, 441 : AIR 1985 SC 371; Bansidhar v. State of Rajasthan, (1989) 2 SCC 557, 571 : AIR 1989 SC 1614, 1621, 1622; Thyssen Stahlunion GmbH v. SAIL, (1999) 9 SCC 334, 373-74 : AIR 1999 SC 3923, 3947, 3948] . As explained by Sinha, C.J., the observations of Lord Herschell are only authority for the proposition that “the mere right, existing at the date of a repealing statute to take advantage of provisions of the statute repealed is not a right accrued [Sakharam v. Manikchand Motichand
