https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176992 Sections 14 and 20 of the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976 were analysed against the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on the question of repugnancy and implied repeal. The majority held that the State Act was an acquisition and nationalisation measure under Entry 42, while the 1988 Act was a regulatory statute under Entry 35; because they operated in different fields and there was no direct conflict, Article 254 did not apply. The provisions were therefore treated as valid and operative. The dissent considered the enactments to occupy the same field and viewed the State provisions as repugnant to the central permit regime. en-us Tue, 27 Feb 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Jan 2016 12:02:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176992 Sections 14 and 20 of the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976 were analysed against the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on the question of repugnancy and implied repeal. The majority held that the State Act was an acquisition and nationalisation measure under Entry 42, while the 1988 Act was a regulatory statute under Entry 35; because they operated in different fields and there was no direct conflict, Article 254 did not apply. The provisions were therefore treated as valid and operative. The dissent considered the enactments to occupy the same field and viewed the State provisions as repugnant to the central permit regime. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 27 Feb 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176992