Skip to content

CA Intermediate · Corporate and Other Laws · The General Clauses Act, 1897

A Central Act enacted in 1990 stated that certain powers 'may be exercised by the Registrar'. Later, the Act was repealed and re-enacted with modifications in 2005. A notification issued under the 1990 Act is still in force. Under the General Clauses Act, 1897, what is the position of that notification, assuming the 2005 Act has no contrary provision?

The notification continues in force, to the extent it is not inconsistent with the 2005 Act, until it is superseded by a notification issued under the new Act. Repeal and re-enactment does not automatically wipe out subordinate actions taken under the old law.

  1. AIt lapses immediately on repeal of the 1990 Act
  2. BIt continues in force, so far as not inconsistent with the 2005 Act, until superseded by a notification under the new ActCorrect
  3. CIt continues in force permanently regardless of any inconsistency with the new Act
  4. DIt continues only for one year after the repeal

Explanation

Where an Act is repealed and re-enacted, the General Clauses Act provides that appointments, notifications, orders, rules or by-laws made under the repealed Act continue in force, so far as they are not inconsistent with the new provisions, until superseded by those made under the new Act. They do not lapse automatically, and they do not survive if inconsistent.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on The General Clauses Act, 1897 shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise The General Clauses Act, 1897Free diagnostic mock

More The General Clauses Act, 1897 questions