31 1956 Act contained a non-obstante clause. In that context, the Court opined:“The Act, however, contains special provisions. The provision of Section 4(4) of the said Act operates notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force. The provisions of the said Act, therefore, would prevail over the provisions of the Orissa Municipal Act. The maxim “generalia specialibus non derogant” would, thus, be applicable in this case. (See D.R. Yadav v. R.K. Singh17, Indian Handicrafts Emporium v. Union of India18 and M.P. Vidyut Karamchari Sangh v. M.P. Electricity Board19.)” 30. In Ram Narain (supra), the Court faced a situation where both the statutes, namely, Banking Companies Act, 1949 and the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951 contained non-obstante clause. The Court gave primacy to the Banking Companies Act. To arrive at the said conclusion, the Court evolved the following principle:“7. … It is, therefore, desirable to determine the overriding effect of one or the other of the relevant provisions in these two Acts, in a given case, on much broader considerations of the purpose and policy underlying the two Acts and the clear 17 (2003) 7 SCC 110 18 (2003) 7 SCC 589 19 (2004) 9 SCC 755 Page 31