ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Ramesh Ranganathan and M. Satyanarayana Murthy, JJ.
M/s. SVPCL Ltd. —Petitioner
versus
State Bank of India & Anr. —Respondents
Writ Petition No.9275 of 2014
Decided on 9.4.2015

Headnote:(i) Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 — Section 5 (1), 13 (2), 14, 18, 35 & 41 — Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 — Section 3(o), 15 (1) & 22 — Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 11 — Res judicata — Division Bench of this Court expressed its disinclination in view of petitioners conduct —To examine legal issue that respondent-bank could not take further steps under SARFAESI Act — Since proceedings pending before BIFR — Petitioner could only have had this legal issue examined by invoking jurisdiction of Supreme Court — HELD — Having failed to do so and having let order attain finality petitioner not entitled to agitate very same issue in subsequent writ proceedings — Present Writ petition barred by principles of res judicata and liable to be dismissed. (Para 12)

       (ii) Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 — Section 5 (1), 13 (2), 14, 18, 35 & 41 — Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 — Section 3(o), 15 (1) & 22 — Abuse of process — Writ Petition filed only to drag on proceedings —Again prevent respondent-bank from taking possession of their immoveable properties —And in realising even part of mounting debt by putting secured assets to sale — HELD — Present Writ Petition clearly abuse of process of Court and liable to be dismissed. (Para 13)

       (iii) Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 — Section 5 (1), 13 (2), 14, 18, 35 & 41 — Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 — Section 3(o), 15 (1) & 22 — Applicability of Sections — Petitioners made reference to BIFR under S. 15(1) of SICAby their application — Question of pendency of reference before BIFR on or after commencement of SARFAESI Act —Does not arise and third proviso to S. 15(1) of SICA has no application. (Para 20)

       (iv) Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 — Section 5 (1), 13 (2), 14, 18, 35 & 41 — Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 — Section 3(o), 15 (1) & 22 — Applicability of Acts — Different purposes of two Acts must be kept in mind — While examining inter play between provisions of the two — And eschew, if permissible, readiness to hold that their provisions overlap or tread over each other. (Para 24)

       (v) Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 — Section 5 (1), 13 (2), 14, 18, 35 & 41 — Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 — Section 3(o), 15 (1) & 22 — Non-obstante Clause — While interpreting provision containing non-obstante clause — It should first be ascertained what enacting part of Section provides —On fair construction of words used according to their natural and ordinary meaning — Non-obstante clause to be understood as operating to set aside as no longer valid anything contained in any other law — Which inconsistent with Section containing non-obstante clause. (Para 26)

       (vi) Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 — Section 5 (1), 13 (2), 14, 18, 35 & 41 — Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 — Section 3(o), 15 (1) & 22 — Both Acts were special Acts — In such event later Act should prevail. (Para 29)

       (vii) Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 — Section 35 — Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 — Section 3(o), 15 (1) & 22 — While S. 35 of SARFAESI Act gives over-riding effect of that Act over other laws — Which inconsistent therewith — Second and third provisos inserted into SICA in year 2002by SARFAESI Act —Cannot be construed as being inconsistent with SARFAESI Act. (Para 32)

       (viii) Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 — Section 37 — Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 — Section 3(o), 15 (1) & 22 — In event of any of provisions of SICA not being inconsistent with provisions of SARFAESI Act — Application of both Acts would complement each other. (Para 38)

       (ix) Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 — Section 5 (1), 13 (2), 14, 18, 35 & 41 — Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 — Section 15 (1) — Permission of BIFR — Neither securitisation company nor bank — Obligated to obtain consent of BIFR — To realise security in accordance with provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules made thereunder. (Para 40)

       (x) Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 — Section 15 (1) — No function of Court to add words to second proviso to S. 15(1) of SICA — On premise that it would defeat objects of SICA — Hardship if any may possibly result for legislative branch of State to consider. (Para 43)

       (xi) Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 — Section 15 (1) —Once jurisdiction of BIFR divested by mandatory impact of second proviso to S. 15(1) — BIFR cannot pass any orders under SICA. (Para 44)

       (xii) Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 — Section 5 (1), 13 (2), 14, 18, 35 & 41 — Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 — Section 3(o), 15 (1) & 22 — Invalidity of proceedings before Court/Tribunal — Suffer from inherent lack of jurisdiction —Can be set up even in collateral proceedings — It would suffice for this Court to declare reference made by petitioner to BIFR — Registration of referenceas nullity — As these proceedings void — Enough for Court to declare it so and it collapses automatically. (Para 45)

       Result: Petition dismissed.