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

2025 Supreme(SC) 902

J. B. PARDIWALA, PANKAJ MITHAL
Bank Of India – Appellant
Versus
Sri Nangli Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Pranab Kumar Mullick, AOR Mrs. Soma Mullick, Adv. Mr. Sebat Kumar Deuria, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Ekta Choudhary, AOR Mr. Ayush Kumar, Adv. Mr. Anand Krishna, Adv. Ms. Rushali Sikand, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury, AOR

Judgement Key Points

The AMRCD (Administrative Mechanism for Resolution of CPSEs Disputes) is a structured framework established by the Government of India to facilitate the resolution of disputes among Central Public Sector Enterprises (CPSEs). Its primary purpose is to provide a formal, streamlined process for resolving disagreements related to the interpretation and application of commercial contracts between CPSEs, or between CPSEs and government departments/organizations, excluding disputes related to Railways, Income Tax, Customs, and Excise Departments (!) .

However, its applicability is limited to disputes concerning the interpretation and implementation of contractual provisions between CPSEs and does not extend to disputes arising from other types of agreements or rights, such as those related to security interests or claims over assets outside the scope of commercial contracts (!) .

In the context of disputes between banks, financial institutions, or other entities concerning security interests or claims over assets, the AMRCD Memorandum is generally not the appropriate mechanism. Such disputes are primarily governed by the statutory provisions of the SARFAESI Act, which prescribes specific procedures, including arbitration under Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act, for resolving inter-se disputes related to securitization, reconstruction, or non-payment of dues (!) (!) .

Therefore, while the AMRCD provides a specialized process for resolving certain inter-CPSE disputes, it does not replace the statutory arbitration provisions under the SARFAESI Act for disputes between financial institutions or secured creditors over security interests or claims. The statutory framework, including Section 11, creates a legal fiction of mutual consent to arbitration, which is deemed to exist among the specified parties for disputes falling within its scope, irrespective of whether a formal arbitration agreement exists (!) (!) .

In summary, the AMRCD is a dispute resolution mechanism tailored for inter-CPSE contractual disputes, but it does not supersede or substitute the statutory arbitration process mandated by the SARFAESI Act for conflicts involving secured creditors and security interests. Disputes that are related to securitization, reconstruction, or non-payment of dues between banks, financial institutions, or similar entities must be addressed through the arbitration process provided under Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act, and not through the AMRCD mechanism.


Table of Content
1. clarification of parties involved (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. resolution of disputes between financial institutions must adhere to the sarfaesi act process. (Para 2 , 29)
3. arguments regarding jurisdiction and applicability of sarfaesi act (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
4. legislative history and intent of the sarfaesi act (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45)
5. disputes related to security interest creation methods require judicial examination. (Para 51 , 53)
6. conclusions and mandatory nature of section 11 (Para 124 , 125)

JUDGMENT :

For the convenience of the exposition, this judgment is divided in the following parts: -

1. Leave granted.

3. For the sake of convenience, we clarify that the appellant herein, ‘Bank of India’ is a nationalized bank (hereinafter referred to as the “appellant bank”), the respondent no. 1 herein, ‘M/s Sri Nangli Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. is a manufacturing unit dealing in rice and other allied products and the borrower herein (hereinafter referred to as the “borrower”), the respondent no. 2 herein, ‘Punjab National Bank’ is also a nationalized bank, (hereinafter referred to as the “respondent bank”) and the respondent no. 3 herein, ‘National Bulk Handling Corpo

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        Judicial Analysis

        None of the cases listed explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law. There are no keywords or phrases such as "overruled," "reversed," "disapproved," or "criticized" that suggest any case has been explicitly invalidated or considered bad law in subsequent treatment. Therefore, based on the provided information, no cases are identified as bad law.

        [Followed or affirmed treatment]

        Mardia Chemicals LTD. Etc. VS Union Of IndiaEtc. - 2004 3 Supreme 243: The case discusses the competence of the Arbitral Tribunal and the seriousness required for a plea of fraud to oust jurisdiction. The language indicates it is treating the principles as settled, with no indication of overruing or criticism.

        Mcdermott International Inc. VS Burn Standard Co. LTD. - 2006 5 Supreme 662: The case affirms the validity of partial awards within the framework of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and discusses the scope of damages computation under Indian law, suggesting a reaffirmation of legal principles without negative treatment.

        Vidya Drolia VS Durga Trading Corporation - 2020 8 Supreme 561: The case affirms that landlord-tenant disputes are arbitrable and discusses the scope of arbitration, indicating acceptance and application of the law.

        Transcore VS Union of India - 2006 9 Supreme 425: Clarifies procedural aspects regarding withdrawal of applications under the DRT Act and the Securitization Act, indicating a straightforward interpretation.

        Mardia Chemicals LTD. Etc. VS Union Of IndiaEtc. - 2004 3 Supreme 243: The constitutional validity of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, is upheld, with only a specific sub-section declared ultra vires, indicating a partial affirmation.

        NANALAL M. VARMA, CO. LTD. VS ALEXANDRA JUTE MILLS LTD. - 1987 0 Supreme(Cal) 161: States that non-payment amounting to repudiation can constitute a dispute subject to arbitration, indicating acceptance of this legal principle.

        Commissioner Of Income Tax VS Hindustan Bulk Carriers - 2002 7 Supreme 104: Clarifies that interest chargeable under Section 245D is a separate levy, affirming the interpretation without indicating any negative treatment.

        Bell Finvest India Limited VS A U Small Finance Bank Limited - 2022 0 Supreme(Del) 1756: States that disputes under special laws are non-arbitrable, consistent with legal principles, indicating a clear stance rather than a critique.

        Sushma Shivkumar Daga VS Madhurkumar Ramkrishnaji Bajaj - 2023 8 Supreme 502: Affirms the competence of the Arbitral Tribunal to decide on its own jurisdiction and the seriousness required for a plea of fraud, indicating acceptance of legal principles.

        [Distinguished or clarified principles]

        Mcdermott International Inc. VS Burn Standard Co. LTD. - 2006 5 Supreme 662: Clarifies that partial awards are valid and discusses the scope of damages computation, indicating clarification rather than overruing.

        Mardia Chemicals LTD. Etc. VS Union Of IndiaEtc. - 2004 3 Supreme 243: Clarifies the scope of the Tribunal's competence and the nature of fraud pleas.

        None of the cases show explicit signs of being overruled, reversed, or criticized based solely on the language provided. The treatment in the list appears to be consistent with affirming or clarifying existing legal principles, but without explicit references to subsequent negative treatment. Therefore, all cases are categorized as either affirmed or clarified, with no uncertain cases identified.

        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 telegram-icon
        whatsapp-icon Back to top