J. B. PARDIWALA, PANKAJ MITHAL
Bank Of India – Appellant
Versus
Sri Nangli Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
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
Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon & Ors. reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110 [Para 49]
Bank of India v. Development Credit Bank Ltd. reported in 2012 SCC OnLine AP 71 [Para 52]
D. Dhanamjaya Rao v. Bank of India, Kothapeta Branch, Guntur
Bell Finvest India Ltd. v. AU Small Finance Bank Ltd.
Dilip Construction Company v. Hindustan Steel Ltd.
Major (Retd.) Inder Singh Rekhi v. Delhi Development Authority
McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd.
Nanalal M. Varma and Co. Ltd. v. Alexandra Jute Mills Limited
M/s. Transcore v. Union of India & Anr. reported in (2008) 1 SCC 125 [Para 85]
Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corpn. v. Diamond & Gem Development Corpn. Ltd.
Delhi Airtech Services (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P. reported in (2011) 9 SCC 354 [Para 109]
State of Haryana v. Raghubir Dayal
Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn.
CIT v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers
Mardia Chemicals Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2004) 4 SCC 311 [Para 48]
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.