https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308902 A later debt-recovery statute did not displace the special recovery remedy under the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 because section 34(2) stated that the 1993 Act operates in addition to, and not in derogation of, the earlier Act. The phrase "in addition to" was read as preserving the pre-existing remedy, while "not in derogation of" prevented any curtailment of the special rights under section 30. As a result, proceedings initiated under the Industrial Finance Corporation Act were not transferred to the Tribunal under section 31 and remained maintainable under the earlier special law. en-us Mon, 13 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 31 Jul 2023 14:31:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308902 A later debt-recovery statute did not displace the special recovery remedy under the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 because section 34(2) stated that the 1993 Act operates in addition to, and not in derogation of, the earlier Act. The phrase "in addition to" was read as preserving the pre-existing remedy, while "not in derogation of" prevented any curtailment of the special rights under section 30. As a result, proceedings initiated under the Industrial Finance Corporation Act were not transferred to the Tribunal under section 31 and remained maintainable under the earlier special law. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 13 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308902