Repeal

When a statute is repealed, everything stands obliterated except pending proceedings.

Rule that a general act/statute was not to be construed as a repeal of a previous particular act/statute was not absolute

Construction that a latter general law did not abrogate an earlier special law was not automatic but was dependent on many factors such as intention of Legislature in subsequent legislation; context leading to enactment of such a law; nature of inconsistency between the two statutes and whether in latter law a reference to the previous particular law on the subject had been made

Normally implied repeal were not imputed and it was an established rule that in construction of a statute; a subsequent statute treating a subject in general terms and not expressly contradicting the provisions of a prior special statute, was not be constructed as intending to affect the more particular and specific provisions of an earlier act

When there existed some express reference to previous legislation on a subject or there was a necessary inconsistency between two acts/statutes standing together the rule that subsequent statute was not to be considered intending to affect provisions of earlier statute, would not be attracted

Presumption would be that Legislature after having had its attention to a special subject and having observed all circumstances, had intended by latter general enactment/statute to derogate from a previous act /statute and had made special mention of its intention to do so in the latter act/statute

Law which was essentially general in nature may contain some special provisions relating to certain matters and said law would therefore be classified "special law", and an inconsistency with a prior special law would be considered to have abrogated by said latter law, by implication.

Repeal of an existing law may be amended through express intendment or it may be implied from a statute enacted later in time and which contains provisions that are contrary to those of an earlier Act of Parliament

Necessary conditions for implied repeal of an earlier statute or provision by a later statute are that, firstly the two statutes cannot stand and coexist together, secondly if they stand side by side the same may lead to absurd consequences and thirdly when the entire subject matter of earlier statute of a provision thereof is taken away by later statute

Provisions of later statute must be so inconsistent with or repugnant to those of an earlier enactment that the two would not stand together and only then would the earlier one be deemed to have been impliedly repealed by the later in point of time

New enactment has to be irreconcilably inconsistent with the earlier legislation so that the former is demonstrably seen having been terminated.

Provisions contained in S.6, General Clauses Act, 1897 protected the judgment and decree against any amendment.

Where any provision is repealed and replaced by another provision then unless intention is clear such amendment cannot affect vested right.

When there is repeal, the consequences contained in S.6, General Clauses Act, 1897 will follow unless a different intention appears

In case of a simple repeal there would be hardly, any occasion to take contrary view, however where the repeal is followed by fresh enactment on the same subject, court has to examine the new enactment to find out and determine any different intention.