Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments



Gauri Gaekwad





                                                50/71                    1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc

34. In case of State of M.P. Vs. Kedia Leather & Liquor Ltd. and Others, reported in (2003) 7 SCC 389, the Supreme Court held as under :-

"13. There is presumption against a repeal by implication; and the reason of this rule is based on the theory that the Legislature while enacting a law has a complete knowledge of the existing laws on the same subject matter, and therefore, when it does not provide a repealing provisions, the intention is clear not to repeal the existing legislation. (See: Municipal Council, Palai v. T.J. Joseph, Northern India Caterers (Private) Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr., Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Shiv Shanker and Ratan Lal Adukia and Anr. v. Union of India.) When the new Act contains a repealing section mentioning the Acts which it expressly repeals, the presumption (105 of 113) [CW- 969/2022] against implied repeal of other laws is further strengthened on the principle expressio unius (persone vel rei) est exclusio alterius. (The express intention of one person or thing is the exclusion of another), as illuminatingly stated in Garnett v. Bradley. The continuance of existing legislation, in the absence of an express provision of repeal by implication lies on the party asserting the same. The presumption is, however, rebutted and a repeal is inferred by necessary implication when the provisions of the later Act are so inconsistent with or repugnant to the provisions of the earlier Act and that the two cannot stand together. But, if the two can be read together and some application can be made of the words in the earlier Act, a repeal will not be inferred. (See: A.G. v. Moore, Ratan Lal case and R.S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka)"