Savings clauses preserved section 40 enforcement after repeal, so the application remained maintainable and was restored on merits.

An application under section 40 of the Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India Act, 1984 remained maintainable after repeal because the 1997 Repeal and Transfer Act preserved pending proceedings and continuing causes of action against the successor company. Section 4(4) saved existing proceedings relating to the Bank's undertakings and allowed enforcement as if the repealed Act had not been enacted, while section 13(2)(b) continued Chapter VIII, including section 40, for arrangements under section 18. The High Court erred in treating section 40 as unavailable merely due to repeal, and its rejection was set aside with the matter restored for decision on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application filed under section 40 of the Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India Act, 1984 remained maintainable after repeal of that Act in view of the saving and vesting provisions of the Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India (Transfer of Undertaking and Repeal) Act, 1997.

Analysis: Section 4(4) of the 1997 Act preserves any pending or existing proceeding or cause of action by or against the Reconstruction Bank in relation to its undertakings and permits continuation and enforcement by or against the successor company as if the repealed Act had not been enacted. Section 13(2)(b) further continues the application of Chapter VIII of the repealed Act, including section 40, in respect of arrangements entered into under section 18, and authorises the successor company to enforce those arrangements fully and effectually. The High Court erred in treating section 40 as unavailable merely because the Act had been repealed, without giving effect to the specific saving clauses.

Conclusion: The application under section 40 of the 1984 Act was maintainable. The High Court's order rejecting it was set aside and the matter was restored for decision on merits.

---