Later special statute prevails over earlier sick-company law, sustaining recovery proceedings and contractual interest liability.

Contractual interest was treated as established where correspondence showed the lender's claim to 21.5% on the first loan and 23% on later loans, and there was no contemporaneous repudiation; the borrower was therefore liable to pay interest at the claimed rate. On the statutory issue, the Special Court Act and the Sick Industrial Companies Act were both treated as special laws with overriding clauses, and the later special enactment was held to prevail. Proceedings under the Special Court Act were therefore not stayed or displaced by pending sick-company proceedings, and the recovery decree with interest was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant was liable to pay interest at the higher contractual rate claimed by the respondent. (ii) Whether proceedings under the Special Court Act could continue notwithstanding the pendency of proceedings under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant was liable to pay interest at the higher contractual rate claimed by the respondent.

Analysis: The loan transaction was not supported by a formal written agreement fixing the rate of interest, but the correspondence on record showed that the respondent had claimed interest at 21.5% on the first loan and 23% on the later loans. There was no contemporaneous material showing immediate repudiation of that claim. On that footing, the rate claimed by the respondent was treated as established and acceptable.

Conclusion: The appellant was liable to pay interest at the rate claimed by the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether proceedings under the Special Court Act could continue notwithstanding the pendency of proceedings under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.

Analysis: Both enactments were treated as special statutes containing non obstante clauses. The controlling principle applied was that where two special statutes conflict, the later enactment prevails. The Special Court Act, 1992, was held to contain an overriding provision giving it priority over other laws, while the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, could not displace recovery proceedings before the Special Court. The interpretation adopted also preserved the scheme of recovery and distribution of attached assets under the Special Court Act.

Conclusion: Proceedings under the Special Court Act were not stayed or displaced by the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on both issues, and the decree for recovery with interest under the Special Court Act was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where two special statutes contain overriding clauses, the later special enactment prevails over the earlier one, and recovery proceedings under the later statute are not barred by pendency of proceedings under the earlier statute.

---