2016 (3) TMI 763 - SC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of appeal - constitutionality of sections 2, 12 and 15(a) of the Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts Laws (Amendment) Act, 2012 notified on 3rd of January, 2013 and the said Act to have brought into force as well on 15th January, 2013 - Held that - The petitioner having filed a writ petition before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petition having been admitted by the Court, the High Court having granted an inter im order which has worked itself out and the petition is still pending before the High Court, filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before this Court is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court, if not misuse. Having invoked a constitutional remedy before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner cannot, under Law, file another petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India on identical set of facts for identical reliefs. Writ petition is dismissed with costs of ₹ 1,00,000/- (rupee one lakh only) to be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services committee within four weeks.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the constitutionality of sections of Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts Laws (Amendment) Act, 2012, and the impact on Multi State Co-operative Societies.

Analysis:

The petitioner sought various reliefs in the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Firstly, the challenge was to declare certain sections of the Amendment Act as unconstitutional and void, arguing that bringing Multi State Co-operative Societies under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and RDDBFI Act, 1993, exceeded the legislative domain of the Parliament. The petitioner contended that this amendment infringed upon the exclusive legislative domain of State legislatures, thus affecting the federal structure of the constitution, a basic feature. The prayer was to declare the Amendment Act as unconstitutional and void on these grounds.

Secondly, the petitioner requested a declaration that provisions of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002, would prevail over the SARFAESI Act, 2002, for recovery from Co-operative Societies or members. Additionally, the petitioner challenged specific sections of the Amendment Act, arguing that the inclusion of Co-operative Societies within the SARFAESI Act was unconstitutional.

Furthermore, the petitioner sought writs to quash notices issued under the SARFAESI Act, alleging violations of natural justice and relevant statutes. The petitioner requested orders to restrain the Respondent Bank from interfering with possession of properties claimed as secured assets, and to declare certain notices null and void.

Moreover, the petitioner sought relief against the Respondent Bank's actions, claiming breach of contract, trust, negligence, and tortious conduct. The prayer included a request for a writ prohibiting the Respondent Bank from classifying the petitioner as a willful defaulter or taking precipitous steps, emphasizing the need for due process and natural justice.

The judgment highlighted a previous writ petition filed by the petitioner before the High Court of Bombay under Article 226, with similar prayers. The High Court had passed an interim order, which was not complied with, leading to the vacation of the order. Despite the pending writ petition before the High Court, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 32 before the Supreme Court, which was deemed an abuse of process or misuse. Consequently, the writ petition before the Supreme Court was dismissed with costs imposed on the petitioner.