Judgment

SARKAR, J. : Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 are share- holders in the company which is the appellant in this case. They made an application against the appellant and its directors under S. 153-C of the Companies Act, 1913 before that Act was repealed on April 1, 1956, as hereinafter mentioned, for certain reliefs which it is not necessary to State. This Act will be referred to as the Act of 1913. This application had been made to the Court of the District Judge of Poona which Court had been empowered to exercise jurisdiction under the Act of 1913 by a notification issued by the Government of Bombay under S. 3(1) of that Act. Before the application could be disposed of by the District Judge, Poona, the Act of 1913 was repealed and reenacted on April 1, 1956, by the Companies Act of 1956, which will be referred to as the Act of 1956.

2. On or about June 28, 1956, the appellant made an application to the District Judge of Poona for an order dismissing the application under S. 153-C of the Act of 1913 on the ground that on the repeal of that Act the Court had ceased to have jurisdiction to deal with it. The District Judge of Poona dismissed this application. The appellant s appeal to the High Court of Bombay against this dismissal also failed. Hence the present appeal.

3. Section 644 of the Act of 1956 repeals the Act of 1913 and certain other legislation relating to companies. Section 645 to 657 of the Act of 1956 contain various saving provisions Mr. Banaji appearing for the appellant contended that the proceeding before the District Judge of Poona under S. 153-C of the Act of 1913 had not been saved by any of these provisions. We do not consider it necessary to pronounce on this question for it seems to us clear that that proceeding can be continued in spite of the repeal of the Act of 1913 in view of S. 6 of the General Clauses Act. Section 658 of the Act of 1956 expressly provides that, "The mention of particular matters in Ss. 645 to 657 or in any other provision of this Act shall not prejudice the general application of S. 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (X of 1897), with respect to the effect of repeals." Mr. Banaji said that S. 658 had been enacted ex abundanti cautela. Be it so Section 6 of the General Clauses Act none the less remains applicable with respect to the effect of the repeal of the Act of 1913.

4. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act provides that where an Act is repealed, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not affect any right or liability acquired or incurred under the repealed enactment or any legal proceeding in respect of such right or liability and the legal proceeding may be continued as if the repealing Act had not been passed. There is no dispute that S. 153-C of the Act of 1913 gave certain rights to the share-holders of a company and put the company as also its directors and managing agents under certain liabilities. The application under that section was for enforcement of these rights and liabilities. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act would therefore preserve the rights and liabilities created by S. 153-C of the Act of 1913 and a continuance of the proceeding in respect thereof would be competent in spite of the repeal of the Act of 1913, unless of course a different intention could be gathered.

5. Now it has been held by this Court in State of Punjab v. Mohar Singh, 1955-1 SCR 893 that S. 6 applies even where the repealing Act contains fresh legislation on the same subject but in such a case one would have to look to the provisions of the new Act for the purpose of determining whether they indicate a different intention. The Act of 1956 not only repeals the Act of 1913 but contains other fresh legislation on the matters enacted by the Act of 1913. It was further observed in 1955-1 SCR 893 that in trying to ascertain whether there is a contrary intention in the new legislation "The line of enquiry would be not whether the new Act expressly keeps alive old rights an