9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (2) TMI 968X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, and the Urban Land Ceiling Act is not excluded. It is clear that in the instant case there was no intention of the Legislature to permit the SICA to apply notwithstanding the fact that proceedings in respect of a company may be going on before the BIFR. The Special Court Act is to have an overriding effect notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in another Act. - CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3760 OF 1995 - - - Dated:- 7-2-2001 - B.N. KIRPAL, RUMA PAL AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ. A. Subba Rao and Dr. A. Francis Julian for the Appellant. Altaf Ahmed, T.C. Sharma, P. Parmeswaran, Ms. Sushma Suri, Shiraz Rustomjee, Mustafa S. Doctor, K. Subba Rao and A.T. Rao for the Respondent. JUDGMENT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the respondent was, accordingly, decreed as prayed for along with costs. 4. During the pendency of this appeal, a further development had taken place and that is that the appellant has become sick and proceedings are going on under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA). 5. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that firstly, the Special Court was not justified in awarding interest in excess of 18 per cent and the second contention was that in view of the special provisions contained in the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, no proceedings should have been initiated or continued under the Special Court Act. 6. As far as the question of interest is concerned, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law except to the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. A similar non obstante provision is contained in section 13 of the Special Court Act which reads as follows : " Act to have overriding effect. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law, other than, this Act, or in any decree or order of any Court, Tribunal or other authority." 9. It is clear that both these Acts are Special Acts. This Court has laid down in no uncertain terms that in such an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r enactment continue to apply. The Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992, provides in section 13, that its provisions are to prevail over any other Act. Being a later enactment, it would prevail over the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. Had the Legislature wanted to exclude the provisions of the Sick Companies Act from the ambit of the said Act, the Legislature would have specifically so provided. The fact that the Legislature did not specifically so provide necessarily means that the Legislature intended that the provisions of the said Act were to prevail even over the provisions of the Sick Companies Act. Under section 3 of the 1992 Act, all property of notified per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the provisions of section 11(2) of the 1992 Act to prevail over the provisions of any other law including those of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. It is a settled rule of interpretation that if one construction leads to a conflict, whereas on another construction, two Acts can be harmoniously constructed then the latter must be adopted. If an interpretation is given that the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, is to prevail then there would be a clear conflict. However, there would be no conflict if it is held that the 1992 Act is to prevail. On such an interpretation the objects of both would be fulfilled and there would be no conflict. It is clear that the Legislature intended that p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
