2013 (9) TMI 1292 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Constitutionality of Sections 3, 5, 8, and 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999.
2. Competence of the State Legislature to enact the Andhra Act.
3. Applicability of the Andhra Act to Vasavi Cooperative Bank Ltd.

Summary:

Issue 1: Constitutionality of Sections 3, 5, 8, and 9 of the Andhra Act

The Petitioners, erstwhile Directors of Vasavi Cooperative Urban Bank Limited, challenged the constitutionality of Sections 3, 5, 8, and 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (Andhra Act), claiming they violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court noted that the State of Andhra Pradesh enacted the Andhra Act to curb malpractices by financial establishments that cheated depositors. The Act was reserved by the Governor for the President's assent, which was granted on June 23, 1999, and published on July 1, 1999. The Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Andhra Act, referencing similar judgments on the Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Pondicherry Acts, which had identical objectives and provisions. The Court concluded that the Andhra Act is not unconstitutional.

Issue 2: Competence of the State Legislature to Enact the Andhra Act

The Petitioners argued that the State Legislature lacked competence to enact the Andhra Act as "banking" falls under Entry 45 of List I of the Seventh Schedule, which is within the Central Government's jurisdiction. The Court referred to previous judgments, including K.K. Baskaran v. State and New Horizon Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Government of Pondicherry, which upheld the validity of similar state legislations. The Court held that in pith and substance, the Andhra Act falls under Entries 1, 30, and 32 of List II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule, which involves the business of unincorporated trading and money lending. Thus, the State Legislature was competent to enact the Andhra Act.

Issue 3: Applicability of the Andhra Act to Vasavi Cooperative Bank Ltd.

The Petitioners contended that Vasavi Cooperative Bank Ltd. does not fall within the definition of "financial establishment" u/s 2(c) of the Andhra Act. The Court rejected this contention, clarifying that the definition excludes companies registered under the Companies Act or cooperative societies owned and controlled by the State or Central Government. Since Vasavi Cooperative Bank Ltd. does not fall into these excluded categories, it is governed by the provisions of the Andhra Act.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the constitutional validity of the Andhra Act and confirming its applicability to Vasavi Cooperative Bank Ltd.