If there is a conflict between the two special Acts, the later Act must prevail. To put it in other words, when there are two special statutes which contain the non-obstante clauses, the later statute must prevail. This is because at the time of enactment of the later statute, the legislature could be said to be aware of the earlier legislation and its non-obstante clause. If the legislature still confers the later enactment with a non- obstante clause, it means that the legislature wanted that enactment to prevail.
Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act (41 of 1992), S.3 – Recovery of loan – Rate of interest – No formal agreement entered into between the parties at the time when the loan was advanced – Correspondence indicates that the respondent had claimed interest at the rate of 21.5 per cent on the loan of Rs. 50 lakhs first advanced and on the balance amount the claim was of 23 per cent – No document to show that the amount of interest claimed was immediately refuted, though it was belatedly refuted by the appellant – No infirmity in the decision of the Special Court in coming to the conclusion that the appellant was liable to pay the rate of interest as claimed by the respondent – Interest awarded @18% – Upheld. [Para 6]
Non-obstante Clause – Both Acts are Special Acts – In such an event it is the later Act which must prevail – It is a settled rule of interpretation that if one construction leads to a conflict, whereas on another construction, two Acts can be harmoniously constructed then the latter must be adopted – Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act (41 of 1992), S.3, S.13 – Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act (1 of 1986), S.32 –
