9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1741X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred as saved petitions. We are of the considered opinion that the Company Court while dealing with the winding up petitions (saved petitions) shall have no jurisdiction to stay the proceedings before the NCLT in respect of revival or resolution issue. We may further state that in case the forum under the IBC, 2016 i.e. NCLT fails to revive or successfully implement the resolution plan, then the Company Judge seized with the winding up petitions (saved petitions) would deal with the petition in accordance with law. We are of the view that allowing both the forums i.e. Company Court and the NCLT to go ahead with the liquidation proceedings/winding up proceedings simultaneously would not serve any purpose. There is likelihood of creation of confusion and complexity. To harmonize this likely situation, we observe that the Company Judge, in saved petitions, would exercise jurisdiction in case revival efforts by NCLT fails. We find that the learned Single Judge approached the issue in its proper perspective and harmoniously considered various provisions of the relevant enactments keeping in view the object behind the special statutes. We do not find any error or perversity in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. on or before 31/5/2017. Such an application could be filed before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under Section 10 of the IBC, 2016. The proceedings before the NCLT were to be commenced in respect of the corporate insolvency resolution process and for an order of moratorium. 5. On 9/3/2017, the Company Petition No. 434 of 2017 was admitted by the learned Company Judge. On 29/5/2017, the respondent Corporate Debtor filed an application before the NCLT, Ahmedabad under Section 10 of the IBC, 2016 being C.P. (IB) No. 37/10/NCLT/AHM/2017 (IBC Application) within a period of 180 days as prescribed by the Repeal Act, 2003. In the said application, pendency of the Company Petition has been disclosed. On 18/7/2017, the IBC Application was taken up for hearing by the NCLT, Ahmedabad. The secured creditors, who were noticed, were also heard. After hearing the parties, the matter was reserved for orders by the NCLT. The matter was to be listed on 20/7/2017 as it was closed for orders. On 18/7/2017, the appellant-creditor filed Company Application (L) No. 333 of 2017 requesting for an appointment of a provisional liquidator. The learned Company Judge, by an order dated 19/7/201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the said Act or other law, no proceedings for the winding up of the industrial company or for execution, distress or the like against any of the properties of the industrial company or for the appointment of a receiver in respect thereof (and no suit for the recovery of money or for the enforcement of any security against the industrial company or of any guarantee in respect of any loans or advance granted to the industrial company) shall lie or be proceeded with further, except with the consent of the Board or, as the case may be, the Appellate Authority. Section 4 of the Repeal Act, 2003 refers to consequential provisions on the dissolution of the Appellate Authority and the Board. Section 4(b) of the Repeal Act, 2003 reads as under :- 4. Consequential provisions. - On the dissolution of the Appellate Authority and the Board, (a) ..... (b) on such date as may be notified by the Central Government in this behalf, any appeal preferred to the Appellate Authority or any reference made or inquiry pending to or before the Board or any proceeding of whatever nature pending before the Appellate Authority or the Board under the Sick Industrial Companies (Sp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od of one hundred and eighty days from the date of admission of the application to initiate such process. (2) The resolution professional shall file an application to the Adjudicating Authority to extend the period of the corporate insolvency resolution process beyond one hundred and eighty days, if instructed to do so by a resolution passed at a meeting of the committee of creditors by a vote of seventy-five per cent. of the voting shares. (3) On receipt of an application under sub-section (2), if the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that the subject matter of the case is such that corporate insolvency resolution process cannot be completed within one hundred and eighty days, it may by order extend the duration of such process beyond one hundred and eighty days by such further period as it thinks fit, but not exceeding ninety days: Provided that any extension of the period of corporate insolvency resolution process under this section shall not be granted more than once. 14. Moratorium. - (1) Subject to provisions of subsections (2) and (3), on the insolvency commencement date, the Adjudicating Authority shall by order declare moratorium for prohibiting a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rofessional, it shall communicate its decision to the interim resolution professional, the corporate debtor and the Adjudicating Authority; or (b) to replace the interim resolution professional, it shall file an application before the Adjudicating Authority for the appointment of the proposed resolution professional. (4) The Adjudicating Authority shall forward the name of the resolution professional proposed under clause (b) of sub-section (3) to the Board for its confirmation and shall make such appointment after confirmation by the Board. (5) Where the Board does not confirm the name of the proposed resolution professional within ten days of the receipt of the name of the proposed resolution professional, the Adjudicating Authority shall, by order, direct the interim resolution professional to continue to function as the resolution professional until such time as the Board confirms the appointment of the proposed resolution professional. Chapter III of the IBC, 2016 refers to liquidation process. Sections 63, 64 and 231 read as under : 63. Civil Court not to have jurisdiction.- No Civil Court or authority shall have jurisdiction to entertain any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mic Adviser SUBMISSIONS : 10. Mr. Zal Andhyarujina, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that under the Act of 1956, the provisions pertaining to liquidation / winding up of companies are provided in Chapter VII and Sections 425 to 560 of the said Act. The present Company Petition was filed under Section 433(e) of the Act of 1956. On 12/9/2013, the Companies Act, 2013 (for short the Act of 2013) was enacted seeking to revise and replace the Act of 1956. The corresponding winding up provisions were enacted, but not notified to come into effect, under Chapter XX and Sections 270 to 365 of the Act of 2013. It is submitted that although the IBC 2016 was enacted on 28/5/2016, different sections of the IBC 2016 were to come into force on different dates as and when notified by the Central Government. On 15/11/2015, Section 255 and Schedule XI of the IBC, 2016 came into force and substituted Sections 270 to 272, 280, 326, 327, 329, 334, 336, 337, 342, 343, 347, 348, 357 and 434 of the Act of 2013 and omitted Sections 289, 304, 323 and 325 of the said Act. Certain provisions were brought into effect on 25/12/2016. In the light of the enactments of the IBC, 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 433(e) of the Act of 1956 in the High Court which had not been served upon the respondent shall be transferred to the NCLT. On 29/6/2017, the Central Government notified the Companies (Transfer of Pending Proceedings) Second Amendment Rules 2017, which further amended the Transfer Rules 2016. Rule 5 of the said Rules reads as under :- 5. Transfer of pending proceedings of Winding up on the ground of inability to pay debts.- (1) All petitions relating to winding up of a company under clause (e) of Section 433 of the Act on the ground of inability to pay its debts pending before a High Court, and, where the petition has not been served on the respondent under Rule 26 of the Companies (Court) Rules 1959 shall be transferred to the Bench of the Tribunal established under sub-section 4 of Section 419 of the Companies Act, 2013 exercising territorial jurisdiction to be dealt with in accordance with Part II of the Code. Provided that the petitioner shall submit all information, other than information forming part of the records transferred in accordance with Rule 7, required for admission of the petition under sections 7, 8 or 9 of the Code, as the case may be, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 443 of the Act of 1956 reads as under :- 443. Powers of Tribunal on hearing petition.-( 1) On hearing a winding up petition, the Tribunal may (a) dismiss it, with or without costs; or (b) adjourn the hearing conditionally or unconditionally; or (c) make any interim order that it thinks fit; or (d) make an order for winding up the company with or without costs, or any other order that it thinks fit: Provided that the Tribunal shall not refuse to make a winding up order on the ground only that the assets of the company have been mortgaged to an amount equal to or in excess of those assets, or that the company has no assets. (2) .. (3) .. The learned counsel submitted that whether the proceedings are by or against the company as contemplated under Section 446(2) or against the Company under Section 442, it is a distinction without a difference. Winding up proceedings are representative in nature. The Company Court has power under Section 446 to injunct other proceedings, to be exercised when a winding up order has been made or provisional liquidator has been appointed. The Company Court retains its jurisdiction under the Comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he NCLT. It is clear that if the service of the notice of the Company Petition under Rule 26 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 is not complied before the 15th December, 2016 such Petitions shall stand transferred to NCLT whereas all other Company Petitions would continue to be heard and adjudicated upon only by the High Court. The Legislative intent is thus clear that two sets of winding up proceedings would be heard by two different forum i.e. one by NCLT and another by the High Court depending upon the date of service of Petition before or after 15th December, 2016. In my view, there is thus, no embargo on this Court to hear this Petition along with other companion Petitions, in view of the admitted position that the notice under Rule 26 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 has been served on the respondent prior to 15th December, 2016. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this court in the Case of West Hills Realty Private Ltd. vs. Neelkamal Realtors Tower Pvt. Ltd. [Company Petition No. 331 of 2016 dated 23/12/2016]. 16. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, appearing for the respondent, submitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es to come. It is further submitted that such an interpretation would be contrary to every cannon of interpretation and would in fact fall foul of the notification dated 7th December, 2016 by which the pre-notice winding up petitions were not only transferred to the NCLT, but were required to be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the Code as also the provisions of Section 252 read with 8th Schedule of the Code, which expressly permits a period of 180 days within which references which were pending before BIFR/AAIFR could be applied to be referred to the NCLT under the provisions of the Code. The interpretation sought to be canvassed by the appellant creditor would render Section 252 and the 8 th Schedule of the Code otiose. 18. The learned Senior Counsel referred to Section 252 of the IBC, 2016 and the amended Repeal Act, 2003 in the manner specified in VIIIth Schedule of the IBC 2016. The Eighth Schedule of the IBC, 2016 provides as under :- In section 4, for sub-clause (b), the following sub-clause shall be substituted, namely - (b) On such date as may be notified by the Central Government in this behalf, any appeal preferred to the Appellate Authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions, placed reliance on the following judgments: (a) Allahabad Bank vs. Canara Bank and anr. [(2000) 4 SCC 406]. (b) M/s. Innoventive Industries Ltd. vs. ICICI Bank and anr. [2017 SCC OnLine SC 1025]. (c) B. Gopal Das and ors. vs. Kota Straw Board (P) Ltd. [1972 (1) WLN 35]. (d) Kailash Prasad Mishra and ors. vs. Medwin Laboratory P. Ltd. and ors. [1985 SCC OnLine MP 194]. 22. We have extensively heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. We have perused the record, impugned order and the judgments cited before us. 23. We may refer to the statement of objects and reasons of the IBC, 2016 which reads as under :- STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS There is no single law in India that deals with insolvency and bankruptcy. Provisions relating to insolvency and bankruptcy for companies can be found in the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, the Recovery of Debt Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the Companies Act, 2013. These statutes provide for creation of multiple fora s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings. The Code also proposes to establish a fund to be called the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Fund of India for the purposes specified in the Code. 4. The Code seeks to provide for amendments in the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, the Central Excise Act, 1944, Customs Act, 1962, Income Tax Act, 1961, the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the Finance Act, 1994, the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Repeal Act, 2003, the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007, the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 and the Companies Act, 2013. 5. The Code seeks to achieve the above objectives. 24. The Apex Court in the case of M/s Innoventive Industries Ltd. vs. ICICI Bank and anr. (Supra) had incorporated the statement made by the Hon ble Finance Minister while piloting IBC 2016 in para 15 which reads as under:- SHRI ARGUN JAITLEY: One of the differences between your Chapter 11 and this is that in Chapter 11, the debtor continues to be in possession. Here the creditors will be in possession. Now, the SICA is being phased ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as debt obligations are met, equity owners have complete control, and creditors have no say in how the business is run. When default takes place, control is supposed to transfer to the creditors; equity owners have no say. This is not how companies in India work today. For many decades, creditors have had low power when faced with default. Promoters stay in control of the company even after default. Only one element of a bankruptcy framework has been put into place: to a limited extent, banks are able to repossess fixed assets which were pledged with them. While the existing framework for secured credit has given rights to banks, some of the most important lenders in society are not banks. They are the dispersed mass of households and financial firms who buy corporate bonds. The lack of power in the hands of a bondholder has been one (though not the only) reason why the corporate bond market has not worked. This, in turn, has far reaching ramifications such as the difficulties of infrastructure financing. Under these conditions, the recovery rates obtained in India are among the lowest in the world. When default takes place, broadly speaking, lenders seem to recover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Speed is of essence Speed is of essence for the working of the bankruptcy code, for two reasons. First, while the calm period can help keep an organisation afloat, without the full clarity of ownership and control, significant decisions cannot be made. Without effective leadership, the firm will tend to atrophy and fail. The longer the delay, the more likely it is that liquidation will be the only answer. Second, the liquidation value tends to go down with time as many assets suffer from a high economic rate of depreciation. From the viewpoint of creditors, a good realisation can generally be obtained if the firm is sold as a going concern. Hence, when delays induce liquidation, there is value destruction. Further, even in liquidation, the realisation is lower when there are delays. Hence, delays cause value destruction. Thus, achieving a high recovery rate is primarily about identifying and combating the sources of delay. xxx xxx xxx xxx The role that insolvency and bankruptcy plays in debt financing - Creditors put money into debt investments today in return for the promise of fixed future cash flows. But the returns expected on these investments are s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which defines claim to mean a right to payment even if it is disputed. The Code gets triggered the moment default is of rupees one lakh or more (Section 4). The corporate insolvency resolution process may be triggered by the corporate debtor itself or a financial creditor or operational creditor. A distinction is made by the Code between debts owed to financial creditors and operational creditors. A financial creditor has been defined under Section 5(7) as a person to whom a financial debt is owed and a financial debt is defined in Section 5(8) to mean a debt which is disbursed against consideration for the time value of money. As opposed to this, an operational creditor means a person to whom an operational debt is owed and an operational debt under Section 5(21) means a claim in respect of provision of goods or services. 31. The rest of the insolvency resolution process is also very important. The entire process is to be completed within a period of 180 days from the date of admission of the application under Section 12 and can only be extended beyond 180 days for a further period of not exceeding 90 days if the committee of creditors by a voting of 75% of voting shares so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bank sand financial institutions under the RDB Act, leave of the Company Court is necessary under Section 537 before a winding up order is passed against the Company or before provisional liquidator is appointed under section 446(1) and whether the Company Court can pass orders of stay of proceedings before the Tribunal, in exercise of powers under section 442? (3) Whether after a winding up order is passed under Section446 (1) of the Companies Act or a provisional liquidator is appointed, whether the Company Court can stay proceedings under the RDB Act, transfer them to itself and also decide questions of liability, execution, and priority under section 446 (2) and (3) read with sections 529, 529A and 530 etc. of the Companies Act or whether these questions are all within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal? (4) Whether, in case it is decided that the distribution of monies is to be done only by the Tribunal, the provisions of section 73 CPC and sub- sections (1) and (2) of section 529, section 530 of the Companies Court (sic Act) also apply - apart from section 529A - to the proceedings before the Tribunal under the RDB Act? (5) Whether in view of provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le was applied by some High Courts to hold that provisions of the Companies Act can be invoked against the Tribunal. 34. While it is true that the principle of purposive interpretation has been applied by the Supreme Court in favour jurisdiction and powers of the Company Court in Sudarsan Chits (I) Ltd. case, and other cases the said principle, in our view, cannot be invoked in the present case against the Debts Recovery Tribunal in view of the superior purpose of the RDB Act and the special provisions contained therein. In our opinion, the very same principle mentioned above equally applies to the Tribunal / Recovery Officer under the RDB Act, 1993 because the purpose of the said Act is something more important than the purpose of Sections 442, 446 and 537 of the Companies Act. It was intended that there should be a speedy and summary remedy for recovery of thousands of crores which were due to the banks and to financial institutions, so that the delays occurring in winding-up proceedings could be avoided. 50. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that at the stage of adjudication under section 17 and execution of the certificate under section 25 etc. the provisions of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued from time to time and the notifications and more precisely the statement of objects and reasons of the IBC, 2016, we are not convinced to accept the proposition propounded by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. IBC, 2016 is framed with a purpose to make sincere efforts for revival of the company. The scheme under the IBC, 2016 is to revive the Company within the stipulated time frame of 180 days and in case the efforts fail then the outcome is to take necessary steps under the provisions of IBC, 2016 for initiation of liquidation process in accordance with Chapter III of the IBC, 2016. Under the scheme of IBC, 2016, in case a resolution plan fails, ultimate outcome is liquidation of the company. These provisions will have to be considered keeping in view the purpose of enactment of the IBC, 2016. We must reiterate the observations of the Bankruptcy Law Reforms Committee wherein it was observed that, Control of a company is not devine right. When a firm defaults on its debt, control of the company should shift to the creditors . The Committee further stated that the objectives desired from implementing the new Code to resolve insolvency and bankruptcy is, (a) lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ept the said proposition. 28. The learned Single Judge had a comparative analysis of SICA and IBC, 2016. The learned Single Judge observed in para 85 of the impugned order as under :- 85. In view of the above since the IBC is admittedly a successor statute to SICA, and Section 64(2) of IBC being pari materia to Section 22 of SICA, the argument that the Company Court has the power to injunct proceedings before under NCLT in cases of pending winding up petitions is entirely misplaced and contrary to legislative intent. 29. A comparative analysis of provisions of SICA clearly indicates that under the provisions of Section 22 of SICA once the proceeding was initiated, the other proceedings pending before the different forums were suspended. In fact, there was an injunction operating in case the jurisdiction under SICA was invoked by a concerned party. The learned counsel for the appellant made efforts to persuade us that the provisions of SICA and IBC, 2016 are not pari-materia legislations to make it applicable to the saved petitions under the Companies Act. In our considered view, it would not be appropriate to observe that by enacting IBC, 2016 the legislator intended t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CA. While considering the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the Apex Court in the case of Marida Chemicals Ltd. ors. vs. Union of India and ors. [(2004) 4 SCC 311] , in para 50, observed as under:- 50. It has also been submitted that an appeal is entertainable before the Debts Recovery Tribunal only after such measures as provided in sub-section (4) of Section 13 are taken and Section 34 bars to entertain any proceeding in respect of a matter which the Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine. Thus before any action or measure is taken under sub-section (4) of Section 13, it is submitted by Mr. Salve, one of the counsel for the respondents that there would be no bar to approach the civil court. Therefore, it cannot be said that no remedy is available to the borrowers. We, however, find that this contention as advanced by Shri Salve is not correct. A full reading of Section 34 shows that the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred in respect of matters which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or an Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine in respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in the year 1988 to promote orderly and healthy growth of the securities, market and for investors' protection. The SEBI Act, Rules and Regulations also oblige the public companies to provide high degree of protection to the investors' rights and interests through adequate, accurate and authentic information and disclosure of information on a continuous basis. 67. The powers and functions of SEBI are dealt with in Chapter IV of the SEBI Act. Section 11 states that, subject to the provisions of the Act, it shall be the duty of SEBI to protect the interests of investors in securities and to promote the development of and to regulate the securities market. SEBI is also duty-bound to prohibit fraudulent and unfair trade practices relating to securities markets, prohibiting insider trading in securities , etc. Section 11-A authorities SEBI to regulate or prohibit issue of prospectus, offer document or advertisement soliciting money for issue of securities which read as follows :- 11-A Board to regulate or prohibit issue of prospectus, offer document or advertisement soliciting money for issue of securities.- (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of the Compan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the Company Court. 33. The purpose of the IBC, 2016 and the NCLT hearing petitions is primarily to revive the company by having a resolution method. Whereas in the winding up petition pending before the Company Court, ultimate approach and object is to wound up the company. Even under the IBC, if efforts to revive the company fails, then the liquidation proceedings get initiated under Chapter III of the IBC, 2016. Taking into consideration the statutory scheme of the IBC, 2016, we are of the view that NCLT constitutes a separate and distinct forum and it cannot be attributed to be a subordinate forum to the Company Court as constituted under the Companies Act. 34. Section 63 of the IBC, 2016 injuncts a Civil Court or authority to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter on which NCLT has jurisdiction under the Code. Section 231 refers to bar of jurisdiction. It states that no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter in which the Adjudicating Authority is empowered under the Code to pass orders and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any orders p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t both special statutes contained non-obstante clauses but that the 1985 Act being a subsequent enactment, the non-obstante clause therein would ordinarily prevail over the non-obstante clause in Section 46-B of the 1951 Act unless it is found that the 1985 Act is a general statute and the 1951 Act is a special one . (SCC p. 157, para 9) Therefore, in view of section 34 of the RDB Act, the said Act overrides the Companies Act, to the extent there is anything inconsistent between the Acts. (b) In the case of Raghunath Rai Bareja and anr. vs. Punjab National Bank and ors. [(2007) 2 SCC 230], the Apex Court in paras 21 and 27 observed as under:- 21. In the aforesaid decision this Court also upheld the view of some of the High Courts that the Company Act is a general statute, and hence the RDB Act which is a special Act, overrides the general statute. In any event, in view of Section 34 of the RDB Act, the said Act will prevail to the extent of inconsistency over the Companies Act. 27. In this connection, it may be mentioned that Section 446(3) of the Companies Act was omitted by the Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002 and evidently the High Court has overloo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .... Thereby implying that though there exists an overlap between the general and special provision, the general provision would also be sustained and the two would co-exist. 34. It is well established that when a general law and a special law dealing with some aspect dealt with by the general law are in question, the rule adopted and applied is one of harmonious construction whereby the general law, to the extent dealt with by the special law, is impliedly repealed. This principle finds its origins in the Latin maxim of generalia specialibus non derogant, i.e., general law yields to special law should they operate in the same field on same subject. (Vepa P. Sarathi, Interpretation of Statutes, 5th Ed., Eastern Book Company; N. S. Bindra s Interpretation of Statutes, 8th Ed., The Law Book Company; Craies on Statute Law, S.G.G.Edkar, 7th Ed., Sweet Maxwell; Justice G.P. Singh, Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 13th Ed., LexisNexis; Craies on Legislation, Daniel Greenberg, 9th Ed., Thomson Sweet Maxwell, Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, 12th Ed., Lexis Nexis) 36. The maxim generalia specialibus non derogant is dealt with in Volume 44 (1) of the 4th ed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
