The Commercial Courts Act has not been enacted to interfere with the
Courts Fees Act or the Suits Valuation Act. It is a settled principle of law
that the provisions such as Section 21 supra have to be read and interpreted
by finding out the extent to which the legislature intended to give it a
overriding effect and the context in which such a provision is made and on aconsideration of purpose and policy underlying the enactment. It is also
relevant to consider whether the conflicting enactment can be described as a
special one and in which case the special one may prevail over the more
general one, notwithstanding that the general one is later in time.
24. Supreme Court, in A.G. Varadarajulu Vs. State of T.N. (1998) 4 SCC
231, while dealing with a non-obstante clause under which the legislature
wants to give overriding effect to a section held that the Court must try to
find out the extent to which the legislature had intended to give one
provision overriding effect over another provision. It was reiterated that the
non-obstante clause, no doubt a very potent clause intended to exclude every
consideration arising from other provisions of the same statute or other
statute but when the section containing the said clause does not refer to any
particular provision which it intends to override but refers to the provisions
of statute generally, it is not permissible to hold that it excludes the whole
Act and stands all alone by itself. Similarly, in Central Bank of India Vs.
State of Kerala (2009) 4 SCC 94, in the context of non-obstante clauses in
Section 34(1) of the Recovery Of Debts Due To Banks And Financial
Institutions Act, 1993 (DRT Act) and Section 35 of the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security
Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI ACT), giving overriding effect to the
provisions of those statutes, it was held that they had overriding effect only
if there was anything inconsistent in any other law or instrument having
effect by virtue of any other law and if there was no provision in the other
enactment which was inconsistent with the DRT Act or SARFAESI Act, the
Courts Fees Act or the Suits Valuation Act. It is a settled principle of law
that the provisions such as Section 21 supra have to be read and interpreted
by finding out the extent to which the legislature intended to give it a
overriding effect and the context in which such a provision is made and on aconsideration of purpose and policy underlying the enactment. It is also
relevant to consider whether the conflicting enactment can be described as a
special one and in which case the special one may prevail over the more
general one, notwithstanding that the general one is later in time.
24. Supreme Court, in A.G. Varadarajulu Vs. State of T.N. (1998) 4 SCC
231, while dealing with a non-obstante clause under which the legislature
wants to give overriding effect to a section held that the Court must try to
find out the extent to which the legislature had intended to give one
provision overriding effect over another provision. It was reiterated that the
non-obstante clause, no doubt a very potent clause intended to exclude every
consideration arising from other provisions of the same statute or other
statute but when the section containing the said clause does not refer to any
particular provision which it intends to override but refers to the provisions
of statute generally, it is not permissible to hold that it excludes the whole
Act and stands all alone by itself. Similarly, in Central Bank of India Vs.
State of Kerala (2009) 4 SCC 94, in the context of non-obstante clauses in
Section 34(1) of the Recovery Of Debts Due To Banks And Financial
Institutions Act, 1993 (DRT Act) and Section 35 of the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security
Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI ACT), giving overriding effect to the
provisions of those statutes, it was held that they had overriding effect only
if there was anything inconsistent in any other law or instrument having
effect by virtue of any other law and if there was no provision in the other
enactment which was inconsistent with the DRT Act or SARFAESI Act, the
said provisions could not override other legislations.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 19th July, 2016
CS(OS) No.2330/2008, IA No.19934/2015 (of the plaintiff for
direction) & CCP (O) No.30/2016.
MRS. SONI DAVE
V
M/S TRANS ASIAN INDUSTRIES EXPOSITIONS
PVT. LTD.
CORAM:-
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
Citation:AIR 2016 Delhi 186
Date of decision: 19th July, 2016
CS(OS) No.2330/2008, IA No.19934/2015 (of the plaintiff for
direction) & CCP (O) No.30/2016.
MRS. SONI DAVE
V
M/S TRANS ASIAN INDUSTRIES EXPOSITIONS
PVT. LTD.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
Citation:AIR 2016 Delhi 186
