Once a rule is struck down as arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the effect is as if such a provision was never in effect, being ‘stillborn’. Even if, in a given case, in subsequent amendment, there is a reference of such provision which has been struck down, yet it cannot be followed, being non-est. The mere fact that before being struck down, it has been referred to in a subsequent amendment, would make no difference. Shiv Kumar Pathak v. State of U.P., 2015 (5) AWC 4984.
Monthly Archives: December 2015
Though no principle of law has been laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Judgment of Persn Medicinal Plants Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Bank, decided on 25.02.2011 but it clearly indicates that in a given situation where an amount more than the amount due from the borrower/guarantor had already been realized by auction sale, which stands confirmed and the possession of the property also had been handed over to the Bank which is utilizing the same or is utilizing the property having purchased the same in the said auction, insistence on the deposit referred to under proviso to Section 18 would be contrary to the legislative intent as also the express provision as is evident from the use of the words “50% of the amount of debt due from him”.
A similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in similar fact situation in the case of S.R. Forging Ltd. v. UCO Bank and another, 2013 (1) DRTC 734, which reads as under:
“At this stage, we find that out of total due amount of Rs. 18.24 crores, Rs. 17.75 crores have been received by the bank in a public auction. Therefore, the deposit of 50% of the amount due prior to sale from the petitioner would be wholly unjustified. The proviso to section 18 of the Act restricts the entertainment of the appeal unless the borrower deposits 50% of the amount of the debt claimed by the Secured Creditors. Once Rs. 17.75 crores have been received by the secured creditors, that is more than 50% of the debt due from the petitioners, the purpose of the proviso stands satisfied”. Akash Ganga Airlines Ltd. v. DRAT, 2015 (5) AWC 5186.