My Lord, Is there a Fundamental Distinction between a “Repeal” and an “Omission” in that in the case of a “Repeal” the Statute is obliterated from the very beginning whereas in the case of an “Omission” what gets omitted is only from the date of “Omission” and not before?
We do not find any substance in the argument that a “Repeal” amounts to an obliteration from the very beginning, whereas an “Omission” is only in futuro.
The expressions “Delete” and “Omit” are used interchangeably. The Appellant’s Counsel does not deny that the expression “Delete” would amount to a “Repeal”. An “Omission” being tantamount to a “Deletion” is a form of “Repeal”, thus.
Halsbury’s Laws of England and The Legal Thesaurus (William C. Burton) both lead to the same result.
These expressions only go to form and not to substance.
– Hon’ble Justice R.F. Nariman, Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills v. CCE, [Civil Appeal Nos. 13601-13674 of 2015].
Also see, M/s. Fibre Boards v. CIT [Civil Appeal Nos. 5525-5526 of 2005].
The best part is of course this: Nariman J. admitted his “considerable interest” in the Appellant’s arguments. He ultimately won for his Bench: “No aspect of the question at hand has remained unnoticed. For this reason we decline to reconsider the judgment in the Fibre Board’s case.”
Does a mathematician ever express “considerable interest” in a calculation he has already noticed, tested and rejected? The Beautiful Mind had several depictions of Dear Nash having as much fun in proving as in disproving. The vanity.
The decline-dismiss paradigm is a bitter one. The Appellant’s Counsel in Bhagwati Steel has earned rich praise from Hon’ble Justice R.F. Nariman. Shri Ajay Aggarwal should be fairly noticed.