Later special statute prevails over earlier sick company law, leaving recovery proceedings outside the stay protection.

Where two special statutes contain non obstante clauses, the later enactment prevails if its text and scheme show a clear legislative intent to override the earlier law. On that basis, the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 was treated as controlling over the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, so section 22 of the sick company law did not stay recovery, attachment, or distribution proceedings. The material also showed no subsisting proceeding capable of being stayed, because earlier applications had already been disposed of, had become infructuous, or had been withdrawn.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 prevailed over the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 so as to bar recovery and related proceedings against the applicant company. (ii) Whether any pending proceedings existed capable of being stayed under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.

Issue (i): Whether the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 prevailed over the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 so as to bar recovery and related proceedings against the applicant company.

Analysis: The provisions of both enactments contained overriding clauses, but the Special Court Act was a later statute and was enacted with knowledge of the earlier sick company legislation. The Court held that the legislative intent was clear from section 13 of the Special Court Act, which gave that enactment overriding effect over any other law. It also found that the scheme of the Special Court Act required attachment, recovery, and distribution of assets under the supervision of the Court, and that this machinery would be defeated if section 22 of the sick company legislation were allowed to control. A harmonious construction was possible only by giving effect to the Special Court Act, thereby avoiding direct conflict.

Conclusion: The Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 prevails, and section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 does not stay the proceedings before the Court.

Issue (ii): Whether any pending proceedings existed capable of being stayed under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.

Analysis: The earlier applications had already been disposed of, one petition had become infructuous, and the later request for extension had been withdrawn or met with no order. On the facts before the Court, there was no subsisting proceeding by the custodian or the notified party that could be stayed.

Conclusion: No pending proceedings existed that could be stayed.

Final Conclusion: The application for stay failed in limine, and the Court declined to interdict the recovery process or any related proceeding, with costs awarded against the applicants.

Ratio Decidendi: Where two special statutes contain non obstante clauses, the later enactment will prevail if its text and scheme show a clear legislative intent to override the earlier law and if that construction permits harmonious operation of the statutes.

---