SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(SC) 872

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI, ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.
GOTTUMUKKALA VENKATA KRISHAMRAJU – PETITIONER
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 732 OF 2018 WITH TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) NO. 301 OF 2017 TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) NO. 304 OF 2017 TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) NO. 303 OF 2017 TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) NO. 305 OF 2017 AND TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) NO. 306 OF 2017
Decided on : 07-09-2018

IMPORTANT POINT
Effect of Substitution of section 6 by amending Act is that the substituted provision is the only provision in the Act from the day of introduction and the earlier provision never existed.

Headnote:Interpretation of statute – Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 – Section 6 and 6A – Substituted – Has the effect of deleting the old provision and make the new provision operative – Incorporation of amending Act or part thereof into the earlier Act – earlier provision after substitution must be read and construed as if the altered words had been written into the earlier Act with pen and ink and the old words scored out – In certain situations Legislature may construe the word "substitution" as an "amendment" having a prospective effect – Substitution does not always connote two separable steps of repeal and fresh enactment – Held, effect of Substitution of section 6 by amending Act is that the substituted provision is the only provision in the Act from the day of introduction and the earlier provision never existed – Appellants holding the post of Presiding Officer on September 01, 2016 will therefore be governed by the substituting provision – Further held, Parliament desired that the benefit of this provision extended even to those who are serving as Presiding Officers on the date when the amendment became enforceable – Contextual interpretation. (Para 14, 15, 21, 22,

       (1975) 1 SCC 192; (2007) 7 SCC 171; (2005) 7 SCC 396; (2004) 8 SCC 1 – Relied upon

       (1987) 1 SCC 424; (2011) 7 SCC 639 – Referred

       (2007) 7 SCC 171 – Distinguished

       Facts of the case:

       Petitioners in these petitions were appointed as Presiding Officers of Debt Recovery Tribunal created under the now Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. At the time of their appointment, the term of their office was “five years or till attaining the age of 62 years, whichever is earlier”. These officers have not completed five years of service. However, they are completing/or have attained 62 years of age after coming into force amended Section 6. The am ended section 6 provides for a term of office of 5 years or 65 years of age whichever is earlier. In the aforesaid backdrop, the question that arises for consideration in these petitions is as to whether the petitioners are entitled to complete the term of five years taking advantage of the amended provision which gives such Presiding Officers to continue until attaining the age of 65 years or to continue till they reach the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier.

       Finding of the Court:

       Appellants holding the post of Presiding Officer on September 01, 2016 will therefore be governed by the substituting provision.

       Result: Writ petition and the transferred cases filed by the petitioners allowed.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. SIKRI, J.

Petitioners in these petitions were appointed as Presiding Officers of Debt Recovery Tribunal created under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 which is rechristened as Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The appointment was made under the provisions of the said Act. Chapter II of the Act deals with the establishment of Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal. The provisions relevant for our purposes are Sections 3 to 6. Section 3 deals with establishment of the Tribunal by the Central Government to be known as the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Section 4 talks of composition of the Tribunal. Section 5 deals with the qualifications for appointment as Presiding Officers. Once appointed, the term of office of a Presiding Officer is stipulated in Section 6. There have been amendments to the various provisions of this Act in the year 2016. Also, the Act which was earlier known as the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 is given a new nomenclature and is now known as the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 by the Finance Act, 2017. Unamended Sections 3 to 6 were as under:

3. Establishment of Tribunal.—(1) The Central Government shall, by notification, establish one or more Tribunals, to be known as the Debts Recovery Tribunal, to exercise the jurisdiction, powers and authority conferred on such Tribunal by or under this Act.

(2) The Central Government shall also specify, in the notification referred to in sub-section (1), the areas within which the Tribunal may exercise jurisdiction for entertaining and deciding the applications filed before it.

4. Composition of Tribunal.—(1) A Tribunal shall consist of one person only (hereinafter referred to as the Presiding Officer) to be appointed by notification, by the Central Government.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the Central Government may authorise the Presiding Officer of one Tribunal to discharge also the functions of the Presiding Officer of another Tribunal.

5. Qualifications for appointment as Presiding Officer. —A person shall not be qualified for appointment as the Presiding Officer of a Tribunal unless he is, or has been, or is qualified to be, a District Judge.

6. Term of Office. – The Presiding Officer of a Tribunal shall hold office for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office or until he attains the age of sixty-two years, whichever is earlier.”

2. As is clear from Section 6, after the appointment of a person as Presiding Officer to a Tribunal, he could hold office for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office or until the attainment of 62 years of age, whichever is earlier. This Section is substituted by Act 44 of 2016 w.e.f. September 1, 2016 and the amended provision read as under:

6. Term of office of Presiding Officer – The Presiding Officer of a Tribunal shall hold office for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office and shall be eligible for reappointment.

Provided that no person shall hold office as the Presiding Officer of a Tribunal after he has attained the age of sixty-five years.”

(3) Along with that, another provision in the form of Section 6A is also inserted which is to the following effect:

6A. Qualifications, terms and conditions of service of Presiding Officer –Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the qualifications, appointment, term of office, salaries and allowances, resignation, removal and the other terms and conditions of service of the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal appointed after the commencement of Part XIV of Chapter VI of the Finance Act, 2017, shall be governed by the provisions of section 184 of that Act:

Provided that the Presiding Officer appointed before the commencement of Part XIV of Ch







































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top