generalia specialibus non derogant

 The latin maxim ‘generalia specialibus non derogant’ governs the

Issue of Conflict between two statues. For statutory construction, it means that “for the purposes of interpretation of two statutes in apparent conflict, the provisions of a

general statute must yield to those of a special one.” This was explained by

the Supreme Court in Gobind Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Bihar, (1999) 7 SCC 76 as follows:

“… while determining the question whether a statute is a general or a special one, focus must be on the principal subject-matter coupled with a particular perspective with reference to the intendment of the Act. With this basic principle in mind, the provisions must be examined to find out whether it is possible to construe harmoniously the two provisions. If it is not possible then an effort will have to be made to ascertain whether the legislature had intended to accord a special treatment vis-à-vis the general entries and a further endeavour will have to be made to find out whether the specific provision excludes the applicability of the general ones. Once we come to the conclusion that intention of the legislation is to exclude the general provision then the rule "general provision should yield to special provision" is squarely attracted.”

Supreme Court - Consumer disputes are non-arbitrable, in the presence of Special act like the Consumer Protection Act.

 In the Matter of M/S Emaar Mgf Land Limited vs Aftab Singh Complaint no. (2019) 12 SCC 751 decided on 10.12.2018 before Supreme Court of India

The appeals were filed challenging the order of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in Aftab Singh v. Emaar MGF Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine NCDRC 1614 holding consumer disputes to be non-arbitrable.The respondent entered into a buyer’s agreement with the petitioner company for the purchase of a villa in the township to be developed by them. Dispute arose regarding the same. The respondent filed a complaint with NCDRC under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for certain reliefs in the matter. The company relied on the arbitration clause provided in the agreement and filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for referring the matter to arbitration. This application was rejected by NCDRC. The company filed appeals against NCDRC order which was dismissed by the Delhi High Court as well as the Supreme Court.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 & Once the public Statute is in place, Arbitration & Conciliation act 1996 can not be resorted to.It was observed that , “….complaint under Consumer Protection Act being a special remedy, despite there being an arbitration agreement the proceedings before Consumer Forum have to go on….”  Thus, it was held that the Consumer Protection Act being special legislation, NCDRC was right in rejecting the company's application under Section 8 of Arbitration Act. Therefore, the review petition was dismissed.