9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (8) TMI 317 - SC - Companies LawWhether the decision dated 7-1-2006 of the Central Government imposing moratorium and to appoint two directors was mala fide ultra vires the powers of the Central Government and the RBI bad in law and void and unjustified on facts? Whether the notification dated 9-1-2006 containing the proposed scheme of amalgamation and the decision to sanction the amalgamation dated 24-1-2006 were mala fide ultra vires the powers of the Central Government and the RBI and unjustified on facts? Held that - Appeal dismissed. To characterize a decision of the administrator as irrational the Court has to hold on material that it is a decision so outrageous as to be in total defiance of logic or moral standards. Adoption of proportionality into administrative law was left for the future.In essence the test is to see whether there is any infirmity in the decision-making process and not in the decision itself. Thus the judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the moratorium imposed on the appellant bank. 2. Appointment of two Directors by the RBI. 3. Scheme of amalgamation with the Federal Bank. 4. Allegations of mala fides and ultra vires actions by the RBI and the Central Government. 5. Consideration of alternative proposals for amalgamation. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Moratorium: The appellant challenged the moratorium imposed by the Government of India on 7-1-2006, which restricted the bank's operations and withdrawals. The High Court held that the RBI's decision to impose the moratorium was justified based on the bank's deteriorating financial condition, including negative net worth and high NPAs. The court noted that the RBI had been monitoring the bank since 1998 and had warned it multiple times. The RBI's decision was based on protecting depositors' interests, and the court found no reason to substitute its judgment for that of the expert regulatory body. 2. Appointment of Two Directors: The appellant contested the appointment of two directors by the RBI on the bank's Board. The High Court upheld the RBI's authority under Section 36AB of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, to appoint directors to ensure proper management of the bank. The court found no fault in the RBI's action, considering it a necessary step given the bank's financial troubles. 3. Scheme of Amalgamation with Federal Bank: The appellant objected to the proposed scheme of amalgamation with Federal Bank, sanctioned on 24-1-2006. The High Court noted that the RBI had considered various factors, including the bank's financial instability and the need to protect depositors. The RBI had explored other options, including reconstruction and proposals from other banks, but found the Federal Bank's offer to be the most viable. The court emphasized the need for swift action to maintain public confidence in the banking system. 4. Allegations of Mala Fides and Ultra Vires Actions: The appellant alleged that the RBI and the Central Government acted with mala fides and beyond their powers. The High Court dismissed these allegations, finding no evidence of bad faith or ulterior motives. The court noted that the RBI's actions were based on objective financial assessments and aimed at protecting depositors. The court also rejected the claim that the RBI favored Federal Bank, noting that the decision was made in the public interest and followed due process. 5. Consideration of Alternative Proposals: The appellant argued that the RBI did not adequately consider proposals from other banks, such as Saraswat Bank. The High Court found that the RBI had indeed considered these proposals but found them less viable compared to Federal Bank's offer. The court noted legal and practical challenges in merging a commercial bank with a cooperative bank like Saraswat Bank. The RBI's decision was based on comprehensive evaluation and aimed at ensuring a smooth and effective amalgamation. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, finding no infirmity in the decision-making process of the RBI and the Central Government. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the legality of the moratorium, the appointment of directors, and the amalgamation scheme with Federal Bank. The court emphasized the importance of protecting depositors and maintaining public confidence in the banking system.
|
