Case: Rama Steel Industries Vs. Union of India

be a bar for providing remedy under the Securitisation Act, since such remedy is in addition to those available under any other law. (18) THE contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that insertion of clause (cci) in section 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, without amending the provisions of clause (c) of section 5 of the said Act, was impermissible, has to be rejected, because the Legislature had to later on bring the Co-operative Societies undertaking Banking within the control and governance of Banking Regulation act. Therefore, it would not have sufficed to include Co-operative Banks within the definition of "banking Company". The Banking Regulation Act defines "banking" in clause (b) of section 5 apart from term "banking Company" defined in clause (c) of section 5. The scheme and object of the Banking regulation Act is entirely aimed at different object and it cannot be used to defeat a special enactment brought into force for objects, which are duly proclaimed. (19) THE contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioners that the impugned Notification dated 28-1-2003 has lost its force, because of the judgment of the Apex Court in Greater Bombay Co-op. Bank Ltd. vs. M/s United yam Tex. Pvt. Ltd. and ors. , referred to above, has to be rejected, because it has been considered and negatived by a Division Bench of this Court, sitting at aurangabad, in Writ Petition No. 2672 of 2007 and we see no reason to take a different view. (20) THE learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that insertion of a provision like the one in the Securitisation Act was beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature. Since the State Legislature could not have provided such a remedy to Co-operative Banks covered under the Maharashtra co-operative Societies Act, the Central Government too could not have created such a remedy. This contention as well has been duly considered by the Division bench of this Court at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No. 2672 of 2007 and we would merely reproduce paras 31 to 34 of the said judgment to underscore our rejection of this contention. The said paras 31 to 34 read as under :"31. The submission is based on Schedule VII List I Entry 43 and schedule VII List II Entry 32 of the Constitution, which read as under :-"schedule 7 List 1. Union List 43. Incorporation, regulation and winding up of trading corporations, including banking, insurance and financial corporations but not including co-operative societies. Schedule 7 List 2. State List 32. Incorporation, regulation and winding up of corporations, other than those specified in List I, and universities; unincorporated trading, literary, scientific, religious and other societies and associations; co-operative societies. "It was submitted that disputes between the members of the co-operative societies can be agitated only under sections 91 and 101 of M. C. S. Act and not under any other Act including the Securitisation Act. ""32. It is necessary to keep in mind two principles while considering the challenge to the constitutional validity of an enactment. Firstly, the approach of the Court while examining the challenge to the constitutionality of an enactment is to start with a presumption of constitutionality. The Court should try to sustain the validity of an enactment to the extent possible. It should strike down the enactment only when it is not possible to sustain it. (Paragraph 75 of the judgment in Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank Ltd.) Secondly, as observed by the Federal Court in Subramanayan Chettiyar vs. Muttuswami Goundan, air 1941 FC 47. "it must inevitably happen from time to time that legislation though purporting to deal with a subject in one list, touches also upon a subject in another list, and the different provisions of the enactment may be so closely intertwined that blind adherence to a strictly verbal interpretation would result in a large number of statutes being declared invalid because the Legislature enacting them may appear to have legislated in a forbidden sphere. Hence the rule which has been evolved by the Judicial Committee, where the impugned statute is examined to ascertain its pith and substance or its true nature and character for the purpose of determine whether it is legislation with respect to matters in this list or that. ""33. At the outset it must be noted that the Supreme Court in Mardia chemicals upheld the constitutional validity of the Securitisation Act. It was however contended that the judgment of the Supreme Court in mardia Chemicals is per incuriam as the Supreme Court had failed to consider the relevant provisions of law including of the Constitution of india and is therefore not binding on us. We are unable to agree. "34 (A) It is important in this regard to refer to Ghanshamdass case. Two of the reliefs claimed in the Writ Petition in that case were for a writ striking down the Securitisation Act and in the alternative striking down sections 9, 13, 15, 19, 34, 35, 41 and 42 of the Securitisation Act. It was contended before the Division Bench that though the Supreme Court hud upheld the constitutional validity of the Securitisation Act in Mardia chemicals, certain points of challenge were not before the Supreme court. It was contended that though the entire Act was challenged, the supreme Court referred to certain aspects which were not answered. (B) The contention was rejected by the Division Bench inter-alia in paragraphs 22 to 25 of the judgment which we have set out earlier. The division Bench held that once the Apex Court had decided the validity of the Securitisation Act in Mardias case, it was not open to the High court to consider the validity of the Securitisation Act once again. (C) We are bound by the judgment of the Division Bench. The contention must be rejected on this ground alone. "(21) TO sum up, this attempt of the petitioner to evade recovery of dues by action under the Securitisation Act must, therefore, fail, since the contentions raised have absolutely no force.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds](21) TO sum up, this attempt of the petitioner to evade recovery of dues by action under the Securitisation Act must, therefore, fail, since the contentions raised have absolutely no force.