SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.C. SHAH, S.M. SIKRI, J.M. SHELAT, V. BHARGAVA, G.K. MITTER, C.A. VAIDIALINGAM, K.S. HEGDE, A.N. GROVER, A.N. RAY, P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND I.D. DUA, JJ.
1. Rustom Cavasjee Cooper (in W. Ps. Nos. 222 and 300 of 1969). 2. T. M. Gurubaxani (in W. P. No. 298 of 1969), Petitioners
Versus
Union of India (in all the Petitions), Respondent.
Writ Petns. Nos. 222, 300 and 298 of 1969, D/- 10-2-1970.
M/s. N. A. Palkhivala and M. C. Chagla, Senior Advocates (Mr. A. J. Rana, Mrs. N. N. Palkhivala, M/s. R. N. Banerjee, S. Swarup and B. Datta, Advocates, and M/s. J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, Advocates of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co., with them), for Petitioner (In W. Ps. Nos. 222 and 300 of 1969); Mr. R. V. S. Mani, Advocate, for Petitioner (In W. P. 298 of 1969); Mr. Niren De, Attorney-General for India, Mr. Jagadish Swarup, Solicitor-General of India, M/s. M. C. Setalvad and C. K. Daphtary, Senior Advocates, (M/s. R. H. Dhebar, R. N. Sachthey and S. P. Nayar, Advocates, with them), for Respondent (In W. P. No. 222 of 1969); Mr. Niren De, Attorney-General for India, Mr. Jagadish Swarup, Solicitor-General of India, M/s. M. C. Setalvad, C. K. Daphtary, and N. S. Bindra, Senior Advocates, (M/s. R. H. Dhebar, R. N. Sachthey, S. P. Nayar and N. H. Hingorani, Advocates with them), for Respondent (In W. P,. No. 300 of 1969); Mr. Niren De, Attorney-General for India, Mr. Jagadish Swarup, Solicitor-General of India, M/s. M. C. Setalvad, C. K. Daphtary and Dr. V. A. Seyid Muhammad, Senior Advocates (M/s. R. H. Dhebar, R. N. Sachthey and S. P. Nayar, Advocates with them), for Respondent (In W. P. No. 298 of 1969); M/s. M. C. Setalvad and S. Mohan Kumaramangalam, Senior Advocates (M/s. R. K. Garg and S. C. Agarwal Advocates for M/s. Ramamurthy and Co., and Mr. V. J. Francis, Advocates, with them), for Intervener No.1; Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Senior Advocate (M/s. R. H. Dhebar and S. P. Nayar, Advocates, with him), for Intervener No.2; Mr. S. Mohan Kumaramangalam, Senior Advocate (Mr. A. V. Rangam, Advocate, with him) for Intervener No. 3; Mr. Lal Narain Sinha, Advocate-General for the State of Bihar 580 (M/s. R. K. Garg and D. P. Singh, Advocates, with him), for Intervener No. 4; Mr. V. K. Krishna Menon, Senior Advocate (M/s. M. R. Krishna Pillai and D. P. Singh, Advocates, with him), for Intervener No. 5; Mr. P. Ram Reddy Senior Advocate, (Mr. P. Parameswara Rao, Advocate, with him), for Internever No. 6; Mr. M. C. Chagla, Senior Advocate (M/s. Santosh Chatterjee and G. S. Chatterjee, Advocates, with him), for Interverner No. 7.
-held, in judging such compensation money value on the date of expropriation must be considered.
Judgement
SHAH, J. (For Majority): Rustom Cavasji Cooper - hereinafter called `the petitioner - holds shares in the Central Bank of India Ltd., the Bank of Baroda Ltd., and the Bank of India Ltd., and has accounts - current and fixed deposit - with those Banks; he is also a Director of the Central Bank of India Ltd. By these petitions he claims a declaration that the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Ordinance 8 of 1969 promulgated on July 19, 1969, and the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 22 of 1969 which replaced the Ordinance with certain modifications impair his rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution, and are on that account invalid.
2. In India there was till 1949, no comprehensive legislation governing banking business and banking institutions. The Central Legislature enacted the Banking Companies Act 10 of 1949 (later called "The Banking Regulation Act") to consolidate and amend the law relating to certain matters concerning banking. By Section 5 (b) of that Act, "banking" was defined as meaning "the accepting for the purpose of lending or investment, of deposits of money from the public, repayable on demand or otherwise"; and by Section 5 (c) a "banking company" meant "any company which transacts the business of banking in India". By Section 6 it was enacted that in addition to the business of banking as defined in Section 5 (b) a banking company may engage in one or more of the forms of business specified in clauses (a) to (o) of sub-s. (1). By sub-s. (2) of Section 6 banking companies were prohibited from engaging "in any form of business other than those referred to in sub-section (1)". The Act applied to commercial banks, and enacted provisions, amongst others, relating to prohibition of employment of managing agents and restrictions on certain forms of employment; minimum paid up capital and reserves; regulation of voting rights of shareholders and election of Board of Directors; prohibition of charge on unpaid capital; restriction on payment of dividend; maintenance of a percentage of assets; return of unclaimed deposits; and accounts and balance-sheets. It also enacted provisions authorising the Reserve Bank to issue directions to and for trial of proceedings against the Banks and for speedy disposal of winding up proceedings against the Banks.
3. The Banking Regulation Act was amended by Act 58 of 1968, to give effect to the policy of "social control" over commercial banks. Act 58 of 1968 provided for reconstitution of the Boards of Directors of commercial banks with a Chairman who had practical experience of the working of a Bank or financial, economic and business administration, and with a membership not less than 51 per cent consisting of persons having special knowledge or practical experience in accountancy, agriculture and rural economy, banking, co-operation, economics, finance, law and small-scale industry. The Act also provided that no loans shall be granted to any Director of the Bank or to any concern in which he is interested as Managing Director, Manager, employee, or guarantor or partner or in which he holds substantial interest. The Reserve Bank was invested with power to give directions to commercial banks and to appoint directors or observers in the interest of depositors or proper management of the Banking Companies, or in the interest of Banking policy (which expression was defined by Section 5 (ca) as "any policy which is specified from time to time by the Reserve Bank in the interest of the banking system or in the interest of monetary stability or sound economic growth, having due regard to the interests of the depositors, volume of deposits and other resources of the bank and the need for equitable allocation and the efficient use of these deposits and resources". The Reserve Bank was also invested with power to remove managerial and other personnel from office and to appoint additional directors, and to
Municipal Committee of Amritsar v. State of Punjab
relied on : Harishanker Bagla and Another v. The State of M. P.
referred to : Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R.Tendolkar and Others
P. V. Sivrajan v. Union of India and Another
Board of Trustees Ayurvedic and Unani Tibia College Delhi v. State of Delhi and Another
relied on : Harnam Singh and Others v. Regional Transport Authority Calcutta and Others
referred to : Vajravelu Mudaliar v. Special Deputy Collector Madras and Others
Shantilal Mangaldas v. State of Gujuat
Union of India v. The Metal Corporation of India Ltd. and Another
Rhotas Industries case v. S. D. AGARWAL AND OTHERS
Chiranjit Lal Chaudhuri v. Union of India
Tata Engineering and Lacomotice Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Others
Rhotas Industries Ltd. v. S. D. Agarwal and Another
Rajahmundry Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. v. The State of Andhra
K. K. Kochuni and Others v. The State of Madras and Others
Swami Motor Transport Co. (P) Ltd. v. Sri Sankaraswamigal Mutt
relied on : Maharana Shri Jayavant Singhji v. The State of Gujarat
State of Bombay v. Bhanji Munji and Another
Babu Barkya Thakur v. The State of Bombay
The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ranoji Rao Shinde
Saghir Ahmed v. Tht State of U. P. and Others
Akadasi Padhan v. State of orissa
Rasbihari Panda and Others v. State of orissa
Mis. Vrajlal Manilal and Co. and Another v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Municipal Committee Amritsar and Others v. State of Punjab and Others
Mohammed Yasin v. The Team Area Committee Jalalabad and Another
referred to : State of Bombay v. F. N. Balsara
State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar
Shri Ramakrishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar and Others
relied on : State of Rajasthan v. Mukan Chand and Others
N. B. Feejeebhoy v. Assistant Collector Thana
Union of India v. Kambabai Harjiwandas Parekh and Others
State of Madras v. D. Namasivaya Mudaliar
P. Vajaravelu Mudaliar v. Sp. Deputy Collector Madras and Another
Union of India v. Metal Corporation of India Ltd. and Another
Lachhman Das and Others v. Municipal Committee, Jalalabad
relied on : State of Gujarat v. Shantilal Mangaldas and Others
State of Bihar v. Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga and Others
relied on : Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. State of Bombay
State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal Base
State of Bombay v. Bhanji Munji and Another
K. K. Kochuni and Others v. State of Madias and Others
State of Gujarat v. Shantilal Mangaldas and Others
State of Bihar v. Maharaja of Darbhanga
Commissioner H. R. E. Madras v. Lakshmindra Thitha Swamiar of Sri Sirw Mutt
J. K. Trust Bombay v. The Commissioner of Income-tax Excess Profits Tax Bombay
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.