IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.3401 of 2003 with CIVIL APPLICATION No.4094 of 2003(in SCA No.3401/2003) with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.1475 of 2003 with CIVIL APPLICATION No.3580 of 2003(in SCA No.1475/2003) with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.916 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.936 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.5228 of 2003 To SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.5241 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.6053 of 2003 with CIVIL APPLICATION No.3533 of 2003(in SCA No.6053/2003) with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.5246 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.5688 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.6128 of 2003 with CIVIL APPLICATION No.4562 of 2003(in SCA No.6128/2003) with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.6319 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.6425 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.6449 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.6464 of 2003 To SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.6471 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.6498 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.6503 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.6504 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.6512 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.6634 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.6645 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.6681 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.6684 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.6687 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.6728 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.6860 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.6861 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.6983 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.7029 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.7174 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.8045 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.8755 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.8894 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.7108 of 2003 with CIVIL APPLICATION No.3910 of 2003(in SCA No.7108/2003) with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.8737 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.8739 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.2779 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.6962 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.2758 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.7139 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.3845 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.6790 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.8033 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.6997 of 2003 with CIVIL APPLICATION No.3581 of 2003(in SCA No.6997/2003) with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.8437 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.6686 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.8322 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.8035 of 2003 with CIVIL APPLICATION No.3907 of 2003(in SCA No.8035/2003) with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.5395 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.6830 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.9891 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.9884 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.7643 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.9514 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.4772 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.9888 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.7199 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.6963 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.6761 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.7901 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.7902 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.8481 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.8484 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.6461 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.8097 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.8098 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.5668 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.2129 of 2003 with CIVIL APPLICATION No.2506 of 2003(in SCA No.2129/2003) with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.2130 of 2003 with CIVIL APPLICATION No.2509 of 2003(in SCA No.2130/2003) with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.8937 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.9360 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.5991 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.6815 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.6945 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.6946 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.6938 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.6947 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.7995 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.3266 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.3267 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.7196 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.7112 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.3268 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.8614 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.8036 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.7002 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.8034 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.6275 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.7114 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.2786 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.2783 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.6823 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.7457 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.7650 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.8139 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.8494 of 2003 To SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.8497 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.3787 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.9382 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.9421 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.3099 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.6755 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.6988 of 2003 with CIVIL APPLICATION No.4563 of 2003(in SCA No.6988/2003) with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.3846 of 2003 with CIVIL APPLICATION No.3905 of 2003(in & with SCA No.6961/2003) with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.6470 of 2003 with CIVIL APPLICATION No.3906 of 2003(in SCA No.6470/2003) with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.7958 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.4441 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.4463 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.4472 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.7003 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.8119 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.8128 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.6471 of 2003 with CIVIL APPLICATION No.3909 of 2003(in SCA No.6471/2003) with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.5072 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.606 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.6948 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.6950 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.6973 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.6974 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.6975 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.6976 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.7005 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.9882 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.9887 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.9886 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.9889 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.6796 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.9919 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.2016 of 2003 with CIVIL APPLICATION No.4743 of 2003(in SCA No.2016/2003) with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10060 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10061 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.5059 of 2003 with CIVIL APPLICATION No.3373 of 2003(in SCA No.5059/2003) with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.10331 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.10332 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.10333 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.10336 of 2003 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : YES to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : YES 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : YES Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals? -------------------------------------------------------------- APEX ELECTRICALS LTD. and others Versus ICICI BANK LTD. and others -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL Date of decision: 30/07/2003 CAV JUDGEMENT AND ORDER 1. In all these petitions challenge is made by the concerned petitioners to the action taken by the concerned respondent Bank or Financial Institution, as the case may be, under the Act. In majority of the cases the action under challenge is at a stage of issuance of notice under Section 13(2) of "The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002"(hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), requiring the borrower, by notice in writing, to discharge full liabilities of secured creditors. Only in few cases which shall be dealt with at the appropriate stage there is challenge to other actions of Bank in addition to the action for challenging the notice. The challenge is also to the action of the Bank of taking steps under Section 13(4) of the Act of either sealing secured assets and/or for taking possession of the secured assets. It is also an admitted position that as per the information supplied to the Court that none of the petitioners has approached Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "DRT") against the action of the Bank under Section 13(4) of the Act by preferring appeal under Section 17 of the Act and all these petitions are preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before this Court. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties namely, Mr.Mihir H. Joshi, Mr.N.K.Majmudar, Mr.Bhagat, Mr.M.S.Shah, Mr.S.S.Shah, Mr.P.S.Champaneri, Mr.Marshal, Mr.J.T.Trivedi, Mr.A.M.Parekh, Mr.C.L.Soni, Mr.Kapadia, Mr.A.M.Raval, and Mr.Jayesh Dave, and other learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioners who are mainly representing borrowers or loanees or the guarantors. I have also heard learned Counsel, Mr.M.J. Thakore, with Mr.Sangi, Mr.S.N.Soparkar, with Mr.Amar Bhatt, Mr.K.S.Nanavati with Mr.Chudgar, Mr.Panesar, Mr.P.V.Nanavati, and Mr.G.S.Thakkar, and other learned Advocates appearing for Financial Institution, Nationalized Banks, Other Banks and the Cooperative Banks, as the case may be. 3. The other learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners have adopted the submissions made by the aforesaid learned advocates Mr.M.H.Joshi and others appearing either for the borrowers or the guarantors, as the case may be, and the learned Counsel appearing for the Banks, may be Nationalized Banks or Cooperative Banks or other Banks, as the case may be, have adopted the submissions made by aforesaid learned advocates appearing for Banks namely Mr.M.J.Thakore and others. 4. The contentions raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties shall be considered and dealt with to the extent they are relevant for deciding the questions and the points involved in these petitions, in the subsequent portion of the judgement hereinafter. 5. It was already indicated to the learned Counsel appearing for the parties that the matters are being considered for final disposal and, therefore, the learned Counsel have accordingly made submissions for such purpose and, therefore, they are being decided finally. 6. When the hearing of the group had begun, it was already notified to all the learned Advocates appearing for the parties that the hearing of the present group of petitions which is under the Act has already started and those who want to address the Court may make submissions and if the learned Advocates are desirous to give notes for distinguishing facts, they may also give one page note for such purpose. 7. The perusal of the prayers made in the petitions and more particularly keeping in view notes submitted by the learned Advocates for giving distinguishing facts it appears that the present group of petitions can be classified into various categories on facts as under; (a) the petitions wherein challenge to the constitutionality of the provisions of the Act is attempted to be made by filing applications for amendment in the main Special Civil Applications; (b) the petitions wherein the legality and validity of the notification dated 28-1-2003 issued by the Government of India for specifying "Cooperative Bank" as "Bank" for the purpose of the Act, is under challenge; (c) the petitioners wherein the action of the Bank of issuing notice under Section 13(2) of the Act is challenged, but no reply to the said notice is given by the concerned petitioners; (d) the petitions wherein the action of Bank of issuing notice under Section 13(2) is challenged and the reply is submitted by the concerned petitioners to the Bank, but Bank has not taken any action under Section 13(4) of the Act; (e) the petitions wherein Bank has taken action under Section 13(4) of the Act and the matter is before the action of sale is taken or at a stage where proceedings for sale of the secured assets are going on; (f) the petitions wherein Bank has resorted to the remedy under Section 13(2) of the Act, but the earlier proceedings initiated by the Bank are either pending before the DRT or before the Registrars' Board of Nominees or before the Gujarat State Coop. Tribunal or Appellate Forum or Higher Forum under any other law for the time being in force for the recovery of the money by the financial institutions or the bank against the borrowers; (g) the petitions wherein there is a binding decision of either of DRT or of its Appellate Forum or of Registrars' Board of Nominee or of the Tribunal, as the case may be, on facts of adjudicating the outstanding amount and either the recovery certificate is issued or the award is passed which is in the process of execution; (h) the petitions wherein the contentions raised are that the condition precedent of the default or of classifying the debts as non-performing assets is not specified; (i) the petitions wherein the contentions of the petitioners are that the secured assets in respect of whom the notice is issued is not mortgaged at all to the Bank; (j) the petitions wherein pendency or reference before BIFR is sought to be contended as bar in proceedings under the present Act for enforcement of the security interests in the secured assets. (k) The petitions are filed by guarantor of the loan challenging the action of banks either under Section 13(2) or 13(4) of the Act. 8. Learned Counsel, Mr.A.M.Raval and Mr.Kapadia and Mr.K.H.Baxi for the petitioners press for the challenge to the constitutional validity of the Act. In this regard it is pertinent to note that prior to the enactment of the Act, earlier "The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (Second) Ordinance, 2002" was in operation being Ordinance No.3 of 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "Ordinance") having the pari-materia provisions of the present Act. The constitutional validity of the said ordinance is already examined by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: D.S.Sinha, C.J. (as he was then) and J.M.Panchal, J.) in the proceedings of SCA No.9769/2002 in the case of "M.R.Utensils v. Union of India" and the Division Bench of this Court has observed as under: "4. Section 13 of the Ordinance provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 69 or Section 69A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), any security interest created in favour of any secured creditor may be enforced, without the intervention of Court or Tribunal, by such creditor in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance. Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Ordinance contemplates that action by the secured creditor against the borrower may be initiated by a notice in writing calling him to discharge in full his liabilities within sixty days from the date of notice, failing which the secured creditor has been empowered to exercise all or any of the rights under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Ordinance. 5. Under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Ordinance, the secured creditor may take recourse to one or more of the following measures to recover his secured debt, namely :- (a) take possession of the secured assets of the borrower including the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale for realising the secured asset; (b) take over the management of the secured assets of the borrower including the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale and realise the secured asset; (c) appoint any person (hereafter referred to as the manager), to manage the secured assets the possession of which has been taken over by the secured creditor; (d) require at any time by notice in writing, any person who has acquired any of the secured assets from the borrower and from whom any money is due or may become due to the borrower, to pay the secured creditor, so much of the money as is sufficient to pay the secured debt. 6. Sub-section (3) of Section 13 mandates to communicate to the borrower the details of the amount payable by him and the secured assets intended to be enforced by the secured creditor in the event of non-payment of secured debts by the borrower. 7. Section 17 of the Ordinance confers upon the borrower, aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 13 by the secured creditor or his authorised officer, right of appeal to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter, within forty-five days from the date on which such measures had been taken. However, the right of appeal has been circumscribed by the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Ordinance, which provides that the appeal shall not be entertained by the Debts Recovery Tribunal unless the borrower has deposited with the Debts Recovery Tribunal seventy-five per cent of the amount claimed in the notice referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 13. But, the embargo of deposit by the borrower with the Tribunal seventy-five per cent of the amount claimed in the notice is not absolute. Proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 17 empowers the Tribunal to waive or reduce the amount to be deposited by the borrower for the reasons to be recorded in writing. 8. Section 18 of the Ordinance confers upon the person aggrieved by any order made by the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 the right of further appeal to the Appellate Tribunal within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal. 9. Under Section 19 of the Ordinance the Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be, on an appeal filed under Section 17 or Section 18, is empowered to direct the secured creditor to return the secured assets to the concerned borrower, if it finds that the possession of the secured assets by the secured creditor was wrongful. This section further provides that the borrower shall be entitled to payment of such compensation and costs as may be determined by such Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal. 10. The submission of the learned counsel, tested on the touchstone of the provisions of the Ordinance, does not hold water. The provisions regarding notice to the borrower, two appeals, restitution and compensation, contained in Sections 13, 17, 18 & 19 of the Ordinance, sufficiently and adequately take care of the interest of the borrower against the action taken against him by the secured creditor under Section 13 of the Ordinance. In the opinion of the Court, the impugned Ordinance does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness. It is not in dissonance with the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution in any manner." 9. In view of the above, since constitutional validity of the Ordinance is already upheld and the present Act is nothing but a substitute of the Ordinance by Act, the challenge to the constitutionality of the Act cannot be entertained since the constitutionality of the pari-materia provisions of the very Ordinance which is substituted by the Act is already upheld by the Division Bench of this Court. In any case, the view taken by the Division Bench upholding the constitutional validity of the Act is binding to this Court. 10. Mr.Kapadia appearing for the petitioners could not show any of the distinguishing provisions of the Act vis-a-vis the provisions of the Ordinance. However, he only submitted that in view of the observations made by the Division Bench in the aforesaid judgement at para 11 that the exercise of examining the validity or even otherwise was academic and, therefore, it cannot be concluded that the Division Bench in the case of "M.R.Utensils"(supra) upheld the constitutional validity of Section 13 of the Act which is challenged by him. In my view, the observations made from para 4 to 10 which have been reproduced earlier shows that the Division Bench did examine the challenge to the pari-materia provisions of the Ordinance and, therefore, the binding effect of the view of the Division Bench of this Court upon this Court cannot be diluted and, therefore, the said contention of Mr.Kapadia fails and hence rejected. 11. Even otherwise also amendment sought to be inserted in the memo of petitions by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners challenging the vires of certain provisions of the Act lacks bonafide in as much as the petitioners who are represented by the learned Counsel, Mr.A.M.Raval, Mr.Kapadia and Mr.K.H.Baxi have pressed the amendment only at the time when SCA No.2786/2003 was already heard on 25-6-2003 and was placed for dictation of orders. Not only that, but initially all the petitions which are preferred by the petitioners represented by Mr.A.M.Raval, Mr.Kapadia and Mr.Baxi, without making any prayer for challenging the constitutional validity of the Act. Not only that, but the initial orders including interim orders were pressed before the Bench of the learned Single Judge and the matter is accordingly entertained and appropriate orders are also passed. It is only at the time when the matters are being heard finally by the Court, challenge to the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Act is pressed on behalf of the respective petitioners. If any litigant is approaching a forum and not only that, but is also surrendering to the jurisdiction of that forum by pressing for the order in the proceedings initiated by such litigant and on the basis of such representation appropriate orders are also passed and the benefit to that extent is enjoyed by such litigant, thereafter at the time when the matter is taken up for final disposal by the Court or is being heard with the other group of the same challenge and at that stage to press for challenge to the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Act and thereby creating a situation, so that the matter may be required to be segregated and transferred to the other forum and thereby to continue to enjoy the benefits of the initial order until the another Forum finally decides the matter can be said as a dilatory practice and tactics of continuing with the proceedings which cannot be entertained or encouraged by the Court. If such practice or tactics are entertained, it would result into allowing the litigant to take undue benefits of delay in the proceedings and enjoyment of the initial or interim orders passed by adopting dilatory practice and tactics and such cannot be said to be bonafide action on the part of any litigant in the Court of law. Therefore, since such challenge to the vires of certain provisions of the Act by the petitioners, who are represented by Mr.A.M.Raval, Mr.Kapadia and Mr.Baxi lacks bonafide. Such amendment in the petition by bringing challenge to the vires of the provisions of the Act which is otherwise also concluded by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court and, therefore, also should not be allowed and deserves to be rejected. 12. The aforesaid takes me to examine the contentions raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties on the premise that the Act is intra vires to the powers under the Constitution of India. Before I consider the challenge and the contentions raised, some background beyond the Ordinance and the Act is required to be taken note of and such would enable the Court to interpret and examine various challenges made keeping in view the intention of the Parliament for legislating the Act. In the case of "K.P.Varghese vs. Incometax Officer, Ernakulum and Another" reported in AIR 1981 SC, 1922, the Apex Court, while considering the principles for interpretation of the Statutes, has observed that the proceeding of the legislature are relevant as it throws considerable light on the object and purpose of enactment of Statute. 13. While presenting the bill of the present Act in the Parliament the detail given, inter alia, shows that a new bill on Banking Sector Reforms was proposed to be introduced in the Parliament in strengthening creditors' right through foreclosure and enforcement of securities by Banks and Financial Institutions. The same was also on the basis of Narasimham Committee and Andhyarujina Committee reports which, inter alia, provided that legal framework