if certain amendments made to the statute indirectly cause to make other existing clause(s) in a statue defunct.....although other existing clauses are more restricting ones.
And such amendments in that statute also don't explicitly declare to be superceding the other clauses......
And such amendments also don't elaborate on the effect of the amendments on other clauses in other subsections..............from the perspective whether it abrogates the other clauses or not (if it abrogates other clauses then it is going to virtually shake up the bilateral contract in favour of one party at the cost/loss of other party in contract)
And if a litigation/lawsuit which was disposed before such amendments got into effect ............gets revived/challenged again by the 'losing party' in previous litigation.....................post such amendment ..............as amendment favours that party !!!
(This would be a recurring problem in all laws and where compensations, waivers/stakes are high!!)
Then which interpretation of clause to be held as superceded/more relevant over other?(among the litigating parties one would benefit and other would lose ... as well as other way round if new amendment is not considered...since there is a overlap of interpretation.)
