9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (5) TMI 417 - SC - Companies LawRecovery Officer under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act - Whether the Act of 1992 will prevail or the Act of 1993? Held that - Appeal dismissed. In the present case Section 34 of the Act of 1993 starts with non obstante clause, likewise section 9A of the Act of 1992. But incidentally, in this case section 9A came subsequently, i.e. it came on 25-1-1994. Therefore, it is a subsequent legislation which will have the overriding effect over the Act of 1993. But cases might arise where both the enactments have the non obstante clause then in that case, the proper perspective would be that one has to see the subject and the dominant purpose for which the special enactment was made and in case the dominant purpose is covered by that contingencies, then notwithstanding that the Act might have come at a later point of time still the intention can be ascertained by looking to the objects and reasons. However, so far as the present case is concerned, it is more than clear that section 9A of the Act of 1992 was amended on 25-1-1994 whereas the Act of 1993 came in 1993. Therefore, the Act of 1992 as amended to include section 9A in 1994 being subsequent legislation will prevail and not the provisions of the Act of 1993.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) versus Special Court under the Special Courts (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992. 2. Overriding effect of the Special Courts Act, 1992 versus the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. 3. Priority of claims under the Special Courts Act, 1992. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) versus Special Court under the Special Courts Act, 1992 The primary issue was whether the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) had jurisdiction to grant a declaration regarding the properties of a notified person under the Special Courts Act, 1992, or whether such matters fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Special Court. The respondent was declared a notified party under the Special Courts Act, 1992, on 6-10-2001, leading to the attachment of all his properties. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that since the respondent was a notified party, all properties stood attached under Section 3 of the Special Courts Act, 1992, and the Special Court had exclusive jurisdiction under Section 9A of the same Act. Consequently, the DRT had no jurisdiction. 2. Overriding effect of the Special Courts Act, 1992 versus the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 The appellant argued that the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, being a subsequent legislation, should override the Special Courts Act, 1992. However, the court noted that Section 9A of the Special Courts Act, 1992, was introduced by an amendment in 1994, which postdates the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. Therefore, the court held that the Special Courts Act, 1992, as amended in 1994, would have an overriding effect over the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The court emphasized that the Special Courts Act was enacted to deal with specific fraudulent transactions in securities during a defined period, thus having a special purpose. 3. Priority of claims under the Special Courts Act, 1992 The court analyzed Section 11 of the Special Courts Act, 1992, which outlines the order of priority for discharging liabilities from the attached properties of a notified person. The first priority is given to revenues, taxes, cesses, and rates due to the government, followed by amounts due to banks or financial institutions, and lastly, any other liabilities as specified by the Special Court. The court highlighted that Section 13 of the Special Courts Act, 1992, provides it with an overriding effect over any other law, including the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. Conclusion The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, affirming that the Special Courts Act, 1992, as amended in 1994, has an overriding effect and exclusive jurisdiction over matters involving the properties of a notified person. The appeal was dismissed, and the court confirmed that the Special Court alone has the authority to deal with the attached properties of the notified person, including the discharge of liabilities to banks and financial institutions.
|
