9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (10) TMI 262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the other dismissing the petition seeking review of the first mentioned order are under challenge in these original petitions. The application seeking approval of the appointment of the petitioner in O. P.No. 112 of 1986 as the managing director of the company for the period from January 31, 1990, to January 30, 1985, was filed on March 21, 1980. To the show-cause notice calling upon the company to show cause why the request for approval shall not be rejected, the company gave its explanation in time, as is seen from exhibit P-2 marked in O.P. No. 4759 of 1985. The first respondent was not prepared to accept the explanation and, consequently, the request was rejected by the order, the review of which was sought for by the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his office as such managing or whole-time director on the date on which the decision of the Central Government is communicated to the company, and if he omits or fails to do so he shall be punishable with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees for every day during which he omits or fails to vacate such office". Sub-section (1) provides that, in the case of a public company or a private company which is a subsidiary of a public company, whether such public company or private company is an existing company or not, the appointment of a person as a managing or whole-time director shall not have any effect unless approved by the Central Government. This sub-section thus suggests that the order appointing a person as the managing or whol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made to reconcile both the parts ; (2) when reconciliation, however, is not possible, we have to determine which is the leading provision and which is the subordinate provision and which must give way to the other. (See Institute of Patent Agents v. Lockwood [1894] AC 347, 360 (HL) ; and (3) if the second method also is not possible then, we shall have resort to yet another well-established rule, namely, if two sections are repugnant, the known rule is that the last must prevail (See Wood v. Riley [1867] 3 CP 26 per Keating J. and K.M. Nanavati v. State of Bombay AIR 1961 SC 112, 137). Reading these two sub-sections side by side, I am of the opinion that, not only are these two sub-sections is irreconcilable but it is also not p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
