Repugnancy to central laws rejected where saving clauses preserved special local legislation and mortgagee rights remained intact.

The Punjab Act was examined for repugnancy against the Indian Contract Act, the Code of Civil Procedure and the Indian Limitation Act under Section 107(1) of the Constitution Act. The text explains that saving provisions in Section 37 of the Contract Act, Sections 9 and 4 of the CPC, and Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act preserve special or local laws and special procedures. As the Act did not expressly or necessarily remove mortgagee rights under Sections 69 and 70 of the Contract Act, and the central statutes themselves contained saving language, the Act was not inoperative on repugnancy grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned Punjab Act was repugnant to the Indian Contract Act, the Code of Civil Procedure Code, or the Indian Limitation Act so as to be inoperative under Section 107(1) of the Constitution Act.

Analysis: Section 37 of the Indian Contract Act itself recognizes performance may be dispensed with or excused under another law. Section 9 and Section 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code likewise preserve cases where cognizance is barred by special law and where a special procedure is prescribed under another law. On the same principle, Section 29(2) of the Indian Limitation Act saves special or local laws. The impugned Act did not expressly or necessarily take away the mortgagee's rights under Sections 69 and 70 of the Contract Act, and the relevant central statutes contained saving language inconsistent with any claim of repugnancy. The bar of civil court jurisdiction could not therefore invalidate the Act on this ground.

Conclusion: The Act was not repugnant to the cited central enactments and was not rendered inoperative under Section 107(1) of the Constitution Act.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed on the question of repugnancy, and the High Court's view upholding the Act was left undisturbed, save for the modification of costs.

---