9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner is that there are four points to consider the same. Firstly, whether the "special" will prevail over the "general" or not. Whether the later Act will prevail over the earlier Act or not. Whether the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 provides any non obstante clause over and above the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 or not. Whether the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 is special to the special Act, i.e., the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 or not. 2. At the threshold, I find that a claim of the Employees State Insurance Corporation against the petitioner-company for further interest of Rs. 82.78 lakhs is challenged. Although the prayers are not properly made in the w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 is a special Act. By citing Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank [2000] 101 Comp. Cas. 64 (SC) he further advanced his argument by saying that in a conflicting situation about the prevailing effect of the Companies Act and the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the latter prevailed being a special Act. It was further held that there can be a situation in law where the same statute is treated as a special statute by one legislation again a general statute by another legislation. Both the aforesaid Acts can be special Acts and the principle that when there are two special Acts, the latter will normally prevail over the former if there is a provision in the later s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cheme or any scheme has been filed for its rehabilitation before the BIFR or the scheme has been approved or sanctioned by the BIFR. The scheme was not annexed to the petition nor placed before this Court. Such factual situation is not prevailing hereunder. Therefore such judgment cannot have any persuasive value herein. The other judgment cited by Mr. Moitra in Dy. CTO v. Corromandal Pharmaceuticals [1997] 89 Comp. Cas. 1 1 (SC), to establish that the bar applies under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, only to such of those dues reckoned or included in the sanctioned scheme for rehabilitation which is not applicable herein. Here there is no such scheme prevailing for the purpose of due consideration. He has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on to consider the jurisdictional conflict in between the authority under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and the authority under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. Upon going through the relevant records I find that the report or scheme of the BIFR made provision for payments due to ESIC. Such scheme has a statutory force. It cannot be disbelieved that the jurisdiction of the BIFR in this regard was invoked. In further, ESIC had submitted to such jurisdiction of the BIFR. As such at this stage the jurisdictional question is largely academic. However, it is a well-known principle that as between the two special Acts the later Act is to be followed to override the earlier in case of any controversy because ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
