https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114029 Proceedings under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 do not bar enforcement under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 during pendency before the BIFR, because the later statute was treated as a special recovery regime with a non obstante clause and an overriding amendment to the earlier law. Applying legislative history and the mischief rule, the Court considered the two enactments inconsistent to the extent one imposes a recovery stay while the other permits summary enforcement of secured interests. The later securitisation law was held to prevail in case of conflict, and the contrary view was regarded as per incuriam. en-us Wed, 12 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Nov 2014 21:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114029 Proceedings under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 do not bar enforcement under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 during pendency before the BIFR, because the later statute was treated as a special recovery regime with a non obstante clause and an overriding amendment to the earlier law. Applying legislative history and the mischief rule, the Court considered the two enactments inconsistent to the extent one imposes a recovery stay while the other permits summary enforcement of secured interests. The later securitisation law was held to prevail in case of conflict, and the contrary view was regarded as per incuriam. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 12 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114029