9911796707
TMI Blog1957 (11) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red that the High Court alone shall have jurisdiction in respect of companies with a paid up share capital of Rs. 1,00,000 or more. A question at once arose whether the winding up proceedings in respect of such companies which were pending in the courts of District Judges under the Act of 1913 should continue to be retained and determined by the District Judges concerned or whether they should be transferred to this court. As this question is likely to arise in a number of cases a learned single Judge has directed that it be placed before a larger Bench for decision. It is a well settled rule of common law that when an action is brought under a statute which is afterwards repealed, the court loses jurisdiction of the suit pending under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law, the Legislature considers it expedient from time to time to enact saving clauses which expressly provide that whenever a statute shall be repealed, such repeal shall not affect pending actions founded thereon. There are at least two saving clauses which are applicable to the winding up proceedings which were pending in the courts of District Judges under the Act of 1913. The first saving clause appears in the body of the repealing statute, for section 647 of the Act of 1956 is in the following terms: "647. Where the winding up of a company has commenced before the commencement of this Act... (ii) The other provisions with respect to winding up contained in this Act shall not apply, but the company shall be wound up in the same manne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and embraces both "method" and "mode". (Words and Phrases, Volume 26.) The expression "incident" as defined in Burill's Dictionary means "belonging or appertaining to; following; depending upon another thing as more worthy............A thing may be necessarily or inseparately incident to another or usually so". This expression as defined by Webster means "something necessarily appertaining to or depending on another which is termed the principal". Incident is something which appertains to or follows another that is more worthy. The expression "incidental" means something which is only an adjunct to something else and is used to convey the idea of a thing subordinate to, dependent on, and pertaining to another thing which is the principal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the court. It is an accepted principle of law that the same words used in different statutes on the same subject are interpreted to have the same meaning. Indeed, it has been said that if a statutory meaning is attached to certain words in a prior Act, there is a presumption of some force that the Legislature intended that they should have the same signification when used in a subsequent Act in relation to the same subject-matter. I am of the opinion that the expressions "manner" and "incidents" appearing in the Act of 1956 are intended to have the same force and effect as the same expressions had in the Act of 1913 which was superseded by the Act of 1956 (Ananthasubramania Ayyar v. Official Receiver, Sitaram Spinning & Weaving Mills Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act itself. It has been applied specifically to proceedings under the Act of 1913, for section 658 of the Act of 1956 declares that the mention of particular matters in sections 645 to 657 or in any other provisions of the latter Act shall not prejudice the general application of section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, with respect to the effect of repeals. Section 6 of the Act of 1897 provides that in every Central Act passed after 1897, unless a contrary intention appears in the repealing Act, the repeal shall not affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy and that any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced as if the repealing Act had not been passed. Or, to put in a sligh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usly shown by necessary implication. There is nothing in the language of section 10 of the Act of 1956 which would impel the court to hold that the said section was intended to be retrospective. In this view of the case it seems to me that the Act of 1956 would have no effect on litigations pending at the time it was enacted. If, as pointed out by Cardozo J. in Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan 293 US 388, the meaning of a statute is to be looked for, not in any single section, but in all the parts together and in their relation to the end in view, it seems to me that by enacting sections 647 and 658 the Legislature intended that the repeal of the Act of 1913 by the Act of 1956 shall not affect pending actions founded on the earlier statute and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
