Shri Sundaram's submission is also not in consonance with the law laid down in some of our judgments. The approach to statutes, which amend a statute by way of repeal, was put most felicitously by B.K. Mukherjea, J. in State of Punjab v. Mohar Singh, MANU/SC/0043/1954 : 1955 1 SCR 893 at 899-900, thus:
In our opinion the approach of the High Court to the question is not quite correct. Whenever there is a repeal of an enactment, the consequences laid down in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act will follow unless, as the Section itself says, a different intention appears. In the case of a simple repeal there is scarcely any room for expression of a contrary opinion. But when the repeal is followed by fresh legislation on the same subject we would undoubtedly have to look to the provisions of the new Act, but only for the purpose of determining whether they indicate a different intention. The line of enquiry would be, not whether the new Act expressly keeps alive old rights and liabilities but whether it manifests an intention to destroy them. We cannot therefore subscribe to the broad proposition that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act is ruled out when there is repeal of an enactment followed by a fresh legislation. Section 6 would be applicable in such cases also unless the new legislation manifests an intention incompatible with or contrary to the provisions of the section. Such incompatibility would have to be ascertained from a consideration of all the relevant provisions of the new law and the mere absence of a saving Clause is by itself not material.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACivil Appeal Nos. 2879-2880 of 2018
Decided On: 15.03.2018
Board of Control for Cricket in India Vs. Kochi Cricket Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Rohinton Fali Nariman and Navin Sinha, JJ.
Read full judgment here:Click here
No comments:
Post a Comment