Skip to content

CA Intermediate · Corporate and Other Laws · Interpretation of Statutes

A statute enacted in 2018 provides: 'The Registrar may, by order, cancel the licence of a dealer who commits a breach of Section 9.' In 2020 Section 9 was repealed and re-enacted in a modified form by an amending Act that is silent on pending proceedings. In 2021 the Registrar began proceedings against Ravi for a breach committed in 2019, while Section 9 was in its original form. Under the General Clauses Act, 1897, what is the position?

The proceedings can continue. Under the General Clauses Act, 1897, repeal of a provision does not affect liability incurred or proceedings that may be instituted for it, unless a contrary intention appears. Ravi's breach occurred in 2019, and the amending Act shows no contrary intention, so the Registrar may proceed.

  1. AThe proceedings fail because repeal wipes out the old provision completely, as though it never existed
  2. BThe proceedings can continue, because repeal does not affect any liability incurred under the repealed provision or the right to institute proceedings for it, unless a different intention appearsCorrect
  3. CThe proceedings fail because the amending Act is silent about pending proceedings
  4. DThe proceedings can continue only if Ravi consents to the continuation

Explanation

The General Clauses Act, 1897 provides that repeal does not affect any penalty, liability or right accrued under the repealed enactment, nor the institution of proceedings for it, unless a different intention appears. The breach occurred in 2019, so the liability had already been incurred. Silence in the amending Act shows no contrary intention, so the proceedings survive.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Interpretation of Statutes shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Interpretation of StatutesFree diagnostic mock

More Interpretation of Statutes questions