9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2001 (2) TMI 968 - SC - Companies LawNotified person - Recovery of amount due - Held that - Appeal dismissed. Whenever the Legislature wishes to do so it makes appropriate provisions in the Act in that behalf. Section 34 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 wherein after giving an overriding effect to the 1993 Act it is specifically provided that the said Act will be in addition to and not in derogation of a number of other Acts including the SICA. Similarly under section 32 of the SICA the applicability of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, and the Urban Land Ceiling Act is not excluded. It is clear that in the instant case there was no intention of the Legislature to permit the SICA to apply notwithstanding the fact that proceedings in respect of a company may be going on before the BIFR. The Special Court Act is to have an overriding effect notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in another Act.
Issues:
1. Calculation of interest rate on the loan amount. 2. Conflict between the Special Court Act and the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act. Issue 1: The appellant took a loan from the respondent with an agreement to repay the principal amount along with interest at 18% per annum. The Special Court decreed the claim for interest at 21.5% and 23% on the loan amounts, based on the notice served to the appellant regarding the higher interest rate. The Court found the appellant liable to pay the claimed interest rates as per the correspondence and upheld the decision, rejecting the appellant's contention against the interest rate calculation. Issue 2: The appellant argued that proceedings under the Special Court Act should not have been initiated due to the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act. The Supreme Court analyzed the non obstante clauses in both Acts and referred to precedents establishing that in case of two special statutes with non obstante clauses, the later enactment must prevail. The Court cited a previous case where the Special Court Act was held to prevail over the SICA. The Court emphasized that the Special Court Act's provisions were intended to have an overriding effect over any other Act, including the SICA. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the Special Court's decision and upholding the prevailing effect of the Special Court Act over the SICA.
|
