The Supreme Court in a judgment clarified and analysed about repeal of an Act.The clarification and analysis would provide great help in putting up the case in view of contradictory observations and misinterpretations by advocates and by the courts too:
"11. In this connection, we may usefully refer to the decision of this
court in Bansidhar & Ors. V. State of Rajasthan & Ors.[3] where this
court was dealing with the question whether the proceedings for fixation of
ceiling area with reference to the appointed date i.e. 1/4/1966 under
Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 could be initiated and
continued after coming into force of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on
Agricultural Holdings Act which with effect from 1/1/1973 repealed Section
5(6-A) and Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. While dealing
with this question, this court observed that when there is a repeal of a
statute accompanied by re-enactment of a law on the same subject, the
provisions of the new enactment would have to be looked into not for the
purpose of ascertaining whether the consequences envisaged by Section 6 of
the GC Act ensued or not - but only for the purpose of determining whether
the provisions in the new statute indicate a different intention. This
court further observed that a saving provision in a repealing statute is
not exhaustive of the rights and obligations so saved or the rights that
survive the repeal. This court quoted a paragraph from its judgment in
I.T. Commissioner v. Shah Sadiq & Sons [4] : (SCC p.524, para 15). It
reads thus:
“… In other words whatever rights are expressly saved by the ‘savings’
provision stand saved. But, that does not mean that rights which are
not saved by the ‘savings’ provision are extinguished or stand ipso
facto terminated by the mere fact that a new statute repealing the old
statute is enacted. Rights which have accrued are saved unless they
are taken away expressly. This is the principle behind Section 6(c),
General Clauses Act, 1897. …”"
