. In the Companies Act, 1956 and in FEMA, 1999, there are several provisions

Similarly, if one part of the document is in conflict with another part, an attempt should always be made to read the two parts of the document harmoniously, if possible. If that is not possible, then the earlier part will prevail over the latter one which should, therefore, be disregarded.
Q 7. In the Companies Act, 1956 and in FEMA, 1999, there are several provisions
which start with the words "without prejudice" and "notwithstanding". Explain (in not more than 1 0 lines each) the nature and significance thereof, applying the principles of statutory interpretation.

5'l.ns. It is true that there are a number of provisions in the Companies Act, 1956 and
the FEMA, 1999, which commence with the opening words "without prejudice" and "notwithstanding", depending on the subject regulated by, or the context in which the statutory provision is drafted. For example, Section 6(1) of the FEMA, commences with the words" Without prejudice to the generality of the provising of sub-section. (2) ...... Also, Section 9(a) of the Companies Act, provides that the Act would override memorandum, articles etc., of a company, and goes on to state that the provisions of this Act, shall, save as otherwise expressly provided in the Act have effect "notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the memorandum or articles of a
company ".
The word "notwithstanding" is often referred to in leading law lexicons as a "non-obstante clause". A non-obstante clause is a legislative device which is usually employed to give overriding effect to certain provisions over some contrary provisions that may be found either in the same enactment or some other enactment, that is to say, to avoid the operation and effect of all contrary provisions.
On the other hand, the words "without prejudice" are used to indicate that when that expression is used, anything contained in the provisions following that expression is not intended to cut down the generality of the meaning of the preceding provision.
Q 8. Explain the rule of 'Reasonable construction' while interpreting the Statutes. How would you reconcile in case one part of the executed lease deed is in conflict with
the other part? [CA. (Final), May 99J

5'l.ns. For discussion on 'Rule of Reasonable Construction' -See under Ans. 2. Conflict Between Two Clauses of a Lease Deed
In case there is a conflict between two or more clauses in the Lease Deed, an effort should be made to resolve the conflict by interpreting the clauses so that both the
clauses are given effect to. . 4
Thus, an effort should be made to read both the parts of the Lease Deed har- . moniously, if possible. If that is n~ossible, then the earlier part will prevail over the
latter one which should be disregardea: