Back
2011 Supreme(SC) 1237
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MARKANDEY KATJU, CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, JJ.
State Of Maharashtra - Appellants
Versus
Vijay C. Puljal & Ors. - Respondents
I.A. Nos. 6-10 & 17-21 in Civil Appeal No. 6475-6479 OF 2005
Decided on : 29-08-2011
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Advocate Mr. Sanjay Kharde, Advocate, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Alok Kumar, Mr. C. Mukund, Adv. Mr. P.V. Saravana Raja, Adv. Mr. Pankaj Jain, Adv. Mr. Bijoy Kumar Jain ,Adv Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pratap Venugopal, Adv. Mr. P.K. Jha, Adv. Ms. Namrata Sood, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Nair, Adv. for M/S. K.J. John & Co. Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv. Ms. K.V.Bharathi Upadhyaya, Adv.
The Acts were upheld as constitutionally valid under Entry 1 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, due to the need to address large scale fraud and disturbance of public order.
Headnote:
Constitutional Validity - Protection of Interests of Depositors Acts - Summary: The court upheld the constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors Act, 1997 and the Maharashtra Protection of Interests of Depositors Act, 1999, citing the need to address large scale fraud and disturbance of public order. Further arguments on their constitutional validity were not permitted.
Fact of the Case:
The court had previously upheld the constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Act and the Maharashtra Act, and in this case, it reiterated its decision and disallowed further arguments on their validity.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Acts were valid and necessary to address large scale fraud and disturbance of public order, and therefore, no further arguments on their constitutional validity were permitted.
Issues: Constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Act and the Maharashtra Act
Ratio Decidendi: The Acts were held to be covered by Entry 1 of List II (The State List) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, as they were deemed necessary to address the disturbance of public order caused by large scale fraud on depositors.
Final Decision: The Appeals were allowed with no costs, and no further orders were passed on the interlocutory applications.
ORDER :
1. Heard learned counsel for the appearing parties.
2. We have passed our judgment dated 04.03.2011 in K.K. Baskaran V. State, (2011) 3 SCC 793 by which we have upheld the constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 (for short 'the Tamil Nadu Act'). Subsequently, by our order dated 09.05.2011 passed in Sonal Hemant Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 10 SCC 601 we have also upheld the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (for short 'the Maharashtra Act').
3. We are not permitting any further arguments on the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Act and the Tamil Nadu Act as we have already upheld their constitutional validity.
4. Large scale fraud was played on the innocent public who deposited their hard earned money with certain unscrupulous persons. We have held that the Maharashtra Act and the Tamil Nadu Act to deal with this situation are covered by Entry 1 of List II (The State List) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution because this is likely to disturb the public order. However, if any party wishes to submit that it is not covered by the Maharashtra Act or the Tamil Nadu Act (as the case may be), it is open to him to take independent proceedings before the forum concerned.
5. With these observations, the Appeals are allowed. No costs. Since we have allowed the main Appeals, no orders need be passed on the interlocutory applications.
