Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + SC Companies Law - 2008 (5) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (5) TMI 417 - SUPREME COURTRecovery Officer under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act - Whether the Act of 1992 will prevail or the Act of 1993? Held that:- Appeal dismissed. In the present case Section 34 of the Act of 1993 starts with non obstante clause, likewise section 9A of the Act of 1992. But incidentally, in this case section 9A came subsequently, i.e. it came on 25-1-1994. Therefore, it is a subsequent legislation which will have the overriding effect over the Act of 1993. But cases might arise where both the enactments have the non obstante clause then in that case, the proper perspective would be that one has to see the subject and the dominant purpose for which the special enactment was made and in case the dominant purpose is covered by that contingencies, then notwithstanding that the Act might have come at a later point of time still the intention can be ascertained by looking to the objects and reasons. However, so far as the present case is concerned, it is more than clear that section 9A of the Act of 1992 was amended on 25-1-1994 whereas the Act of 1993 came in 1993. Therefore, the Act of 1992 as amended to include section 9A in 1994 being subsequent legislation will prevail and not the provisions of the Act of 1993.
|