KSL & INDUSTRIES LTD.versusM/SARIHANTTHREADS LTD. & ORS.

                    [2014] 14 S.C.R. 1097


                  KSL& INDUSTRIES LTD.                           A
                               v.
           M/SARIHANTTHREADS LTD. & ORS.
                (Civil Appeal No. 5225 of 2008)
                     OCTOBER 27, 2014                            B
            [H. L. DATTU, CJI, S. A. BOBDE AND
              ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
        Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act,
  1985- s. 22- Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial C
  Institutions Act, 1993 - s.34 - Interpretation of two Acts -
  Which of the two Acts to prevail, in view of non-obstante clause
  in both the legislation -Held: Provisions of SICA, in particular
  s. 22, would prevail over the provision for the recovery of debts
· in the RDDB Act- Purpose of the two Acts is entirely different D
  and where actions under the two laws may seem to be in
  conflict, Parliament has wisely preserved the proceedings
  under the SICA, by specifically providing for sub-section (2),
  which lays down that the later Act RDDB shall be in addition
  to and not in derogation of the SICA.                    ·
                                                                 E
       Allowing the appeal, the Court
       HELD: 1.1 The purpose of the two enactments-
 Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial
 Institutions Act, 1993 and the Sick Industrial Companies
 (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 is entirely different. The F
 purpose of one is to provide ameliorative measures for
 reconstruction of sick companies, and the purpose of
 the other is to provide for speedy recovery of debts of
 banks and financial institutions. Both the Acts are
 "special" in this sense. However, with reference to the G
 specific purpose of reconstruction of sick companies,
 the SICA must be held to be a special law, though it may
 be considered to be a general law in relation to the
 recovery of debts. Whereas, the RDDB Act may be
 considered to be a special law in relation to the recovery H
                            1097
1098       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 14 S.C.R.


 A    of debts and the SICA may be considered to be a general
      law in this regard. Normally the latter of the two would
      prevail on the principle that the Legislature was aware
      that it had enacted the earlier Act and yet chose to enact
      the subsequent Act with a non-obstante clause. In the
 B instant case, however, the express .intendment of
      Parliament in the non-obstante clause of the RDDB Act
      does not permitto take that view. Though the RDDB Act
      is the later enactment, sub-section (2) of Section 34
      specifically provides that the provisions of the Act or the
 C rules thereunder shall be in addition to, and not in
      derogation of, the other laws mentioned therein
      including SICA. (Para 49)(1120-C-H]
            1.2 The term "not in derogation" clearly expresses
      the intention of Parliament notto detractfrom or abrogate
 D the provisions of SICA in any way. This, in effect must
      mean that Parliament intended the proceedings under
      SICA for reconstruction of a sick company to go on and
      for that purpose further intended that all other
      proceedings against the company and its properties
 E should be stayed pending the process of reconstruction.
   · While the term "proceedings" under Section 22 did not
      originally include the RDDB Act, which was not there in
      existence. Section 22 covers proceedings under the
      RDDB Act. [Para ~0)(1121-A-C]
 F          1.3 The purpose of the two Acts is entirely different
      and where actions under the two laws may seem to be
      in conflict, Parliament has wisely preserved the
      proceedings under the SICA, by specifically providing
      for sub-section (2), which lays down that the later Ac'i:
 G RDDB shall be in addition to and not in derogation of
      the SICA. That this conclusion has been guided by what
      is considered to be one of the most crucial principles of
      interpretation viz. giving effect to the intention of the
    . Legislature. The difficulty arose. mainly due to the
 H absence of specific words denoting the intention of
 KSL&INDUSTRIES LTD. v. M/SARIHANTTHREADS LTD. 1099


 Parliament to cover applications for recovery of debts A
 under the RDDB Act while enacting Section 22 of the
 SICA. The obvious reason for this absence is the fact
 that the SICA was enacted earlier. It is the duty of this
 Court to consider SICA, after the enactment of the RDDB
 Act to ascertain the true intent and purpose of providing B
 that no proceedings for execution or distraints or suits
 shall lie or be proceeded with. Undoubtedly, in the
 narrower sense an application for recovery of debt can
 be giving a restricted meaning i.e. a proceeding which
 commences on filing and terminates at the judgment. C
 However, there is no need to give su.ch a restricted
 meaning, since the true purpose of an application for
  recovery is to proceed to the logical end of execution
  and recovery itself, that is by way of execution and
  distraint. Thus, s.22 clearly covers and interdicts such D
  an application for recovery made under the provisions
  of the ROB Act. Moreover, nothing contrary is found in
  the intention of the SICA to exclude a recovery application
  from the purview of Section 22, indeed there could be
  no reason for such exclusion since the purpose of
  the provision is to. protect the properties of a sick · E
  company, so that they may be dealt with in the best
  possible way for the purpose of its revival by the BIFR.
  [Paras 51, 52, 53][1121-C-H; 1122-A-B; 1122-G-H;
  1123-A]
        1.4 The provisions of SICA, in particular Section 22, F
  shall prevail over the provision for the recovery of debts
  in the RDDB Act. In these circumstances, the judgment
  and order the High Court is set aside. As far as the writ
  petitions are ·concerned, whether on the ground that
  Section 22 of the SICA acts as a bar to the recovery G
  proceedings under the RDDB Act or whether the
  protection of SICA is not available to the appellant
   company since the recovery proceedings under the
  RDDB Act had been concluded, the writ petitions are
· dismissed. [Para 54][1123-D-F]                              H
1100         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2014] 14 S.C.R.


 A          Kai/ash Nath Agarwal and Ors. v. Pradeshiya
            Industrial & Investment Corporation of U.P. Ltd. &
            Anr. 2003 (1) SCR 1159 : (2003) 4 SCC 305 ; Ram
            Narain v. Simla Banking & Industrial Co. Ltd. AIR
            1956 SC 614 : 1956 SCR 603 ; UC v.. D.J.
 B          Bahadur1981 (1) SCR 1083=(1981)1SCC315;
            Maharashtra Tubes Ltd. v. State Industrial &
            Investment Corpn. Of Maharashtra Ltd. 1993 (1)
            SCR 340: (1993) 2 SCC 144; Allahabad Bank
            v. Canara Bank 2000 (2) SCR 1102: (2000) 4
 C          SCC 406 ; Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless
            General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. & Ors.
            1987 (2) SCR 1 : (1987) 1 SCC 424; State of
            Punjab v. The Okara Grain Buyers Syndicate Ltd.
            1964 SCR 387 : AIR 1964 SC 669 - referred to.
 D                      CASE LAW REFERENCE
       2003 (1) SCR 1159               referred to.        Para 30
       1956 SCR 603                    referred to.        Para 43
       1981 (1) SCR 1083               referred to.        Para 45
 E 1993 (1) SCR 340                    referred to.        Para 46
       2000 (2) SCR 1102           · refe"rred to.         Para 47
                                   1
       1987 (2) SCR 1                  referred to.        Para 52
       1964 SCR 387                    referred to.        Para 53
 F          CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s).
       5225 of 2008.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 23-02-2006 of the
       High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Civil Writ Petition No~.
       2041 of 2006 and 2042 of 2006.
 G
            V. Giri, Sr. Adv., Aarohi Bhalla (For Ms. Sujata Kurdukar)
       Advs. fortheAppellant.
           C.A. Sundaram, Sr. Adv., Ajay Choudhary, Ms. Rohini
       Musa, Zafar lnayat, Govind Grewal, Dasharath T.M., Punit Dutt
 H
KSL& INDUSTRIES LTD. v. M/SARIHANTTHREADS LTD. 1101


Tyagi, Sanjay Bhat, Dushyant Kumar (For Rabin Majumder) A
Rajesh Sharma (For Ms. Shalu Sharma) Advs. for the
Respondents.
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
     S. A. BOBDE, J.
                                                                  B
       1. This appeal is placed before us by way of a reference,
made by a two-Judge Bench of this Court, C.K. Thakker and
Altamas Kabir, JJ. which heard the matter on an earlier
occasion and held that the appeal deserves to be allowed and
that the Judgment and Order passed by the High Court is liable c
to be set aside. In view of a difference of opinion having arisen
on the interpretation of Section 34 of the Recovery of Debts
Due to Banks.and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter
referred to as the 'RDDB' Act) the matter has been referred
for decision to this Bench by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India. D
       2. The present appeal is preferred by KSL & Industries
Ltd. ('appellant' for short) against the final Judgment and Order
dated 23.02.06 passed by the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition
Nos. 2041-2042 OF 2006. The High Court set aside the Order
passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi ('DRAT' E
for short) and held that in view of the bar contained in Section
22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act,
1985 (hereafter referred to as 'SICA') no recovery proceedings
could be effected against Respondent No.1
(M/s. Arihant Threads Ltd.) ('Company' for short).                F
      3. The Company set up an export oriented spinning unit
for manufacturing cotton yarn in Amritsar District, in the State
of Punjab. The Company took on lease, Plot No. 454 in 1992
for a period of 99 years from Goindwal Sahib Industrial &
Investment Corporation, on a condition that it would not transfer G
the interest in the property for the first fifteen years without prior
permission of the lessor. The Company had a right to mortgage
lease-hold rights to a Bank, the Punjab Financial Corporation
or the Life Insurance Corporation of India as security for a loan.
                                                                       H
1102         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 14 S.C.R.


 A     It got its project financed by the Industrial Development Bank
       of India ('IDBI' for short) by way of foreign currency loan and a
       working capital of Rs. 93.1 million.
              4. Since the Company failed to repay loan installments,
       IDBI filed Original Application No. 1368 of 2001 on December
 B     20.12.01 in Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh ('ORT' for
       short) for recovery of Rs. 25,26,60,836/- under the RDDBAct.
       In the proceedings before the ORT the Company remained
       absent, although, duly served. On 15.07.03, an ex-parte final
       order in favour of IDBI for recovery of above mentioned sum
 C     i.e. Rs. 25,26,60,836/- along with interest@ 7.8% p.a. was
       passed by DRT. ORT expressly directed that in the event of
       failure on the part of the Company to pay the decretal amount,
       IDBI will be entitled to sell the mortgaged property of the
       company arid recover the amount. If the amount remained
 D     unrecovered even then, it shall be recovered from the sale of
       personal properties of the defendants therein.
              5. On 09.09.03, the Recovery Officer issued a composite
       demand notice under Rule 2 of Second Schedule of the Income
       TaxAct, 1961 against the Company demanding payment of
 E     Rs. 28,60,87,384/-. He directed the Company to appear for
       settling terms and conditions of the proclamation of sale and
       for disclosure of its movable and immovable assets.
          6. On 16.09.04, the Recovery Officer fixed the reserve
 F price of the movable and immovable properties at Rs. 12.50
   crores. On 18:10.04, the Company filed an appeal under
   Section 30 of the RDDBAct againstthe order dated 16.09.04
   fixing reserve price of the movable and immovable properties
   at Rs. 12.50 crores. On 30.10.04, the appellant was declared
 G the highest bidder at Rs. 12.52 crores and was thus successful.
   On 15.12.04, the Company moved an application for setting
   aside the ex-parte final order, passed on 15.07.03 by ORT
   Chandigarh in favour of IDBI, directing recovery of Rs.
   25,26,60,836/- along with interest@7.8% p.a. The appellant,
 H who had become the auction-purchaser of the company's
KSL& INDUSTRIES LTD. v. M/SARIHANTTHREADS LTD. 1103
                [S.A. BOBDE, J.]

properties objected to the prayer of the Company for setting         A
aside the ex-parte order and applied for impleadment.
Meanwhile, the Company got its property valued by Himachal
Consultancy Organisation Ltd. The realizable value of the
company's property had been valued at Rs. 20.22 crores.
      7. On 26.07.05, ORT-I, Delhi allowed the Company's             B
appeal filed under Section 30 of the RDDB Act against fixation
of reserve price at Rs. 12.50 crores. ORT-I, Delhi, set aside
the auction sale subject to payment of a certain amount, interest,
expenses, etc.
      8. Objecting to these conditions, the Company filed an C
appeal to the DRAT, Delhi. The appellant also filed an appeal
being aggrieved by the setting aside of the sale in its favour.
The DRAT stayed the order dated 26.07.05 by which the ex-
parte order against the Company was set aside and directed
                                                                0
refund of sale amount to the appellant.
      9. On 21.12.05, the Company invoked the provisions of
SICA. It filed a Reference before the Board of Industrial
Finance &Reconstruction ('BIFR' for short). On 10.02.06, the
DRAT dismissed the appeal filed by the Company and allowed E
the appeal of the appellant. The DRAT confirmed auction-
sale in favour of the appellant on depositing the sale price.
The DRAT directed that steps to handover possession of the
property to the auction-purchaser (appellant) be taken by the
Recovery Officer and the appellant shall deposit the entire F
amount.       ·
      10. Before the formalities directed by the DRAT could
be completed, the Company filed two Writ Petitions before
the Delhi High Court against the order of the DRAT, Delhi. The.
Delhi High Court allowed the Writ Petitions vide impugned order G
dated 23.02.06 and set aside the order passed by the DRAT,
Delhi on the ground that in view of the bar of Section 22 of the
SICA. the recovery proceedings could not be pursued against
the Company and no order ought to have been passed by the
DRAT, Delhi.             .
                                                                 H
1104       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014) 14 S.C.R.


 A       11. Subsequentto the order of the High Court, theBIFR
   rejected the Reference of the Company and the Company
   preferred an appeal, which is-pending before the Appellate
   Authority for Industrial &Financial Reconstruction (AAIFR). The
   second Reference has also been filed by the Company which
 B has been registered as BIFR Case No. 18 of 2006, in which
   the Company has been declared as a 'sick Company' and
   respondent No. 5 [Stressed Assets Stablization Fund, Mumbai]
   has been appointed as Operating Agency to prepare
   Rehabilitation Scheme.
 C         12. As stated earlier, the matter was earlier heard by a
    two Judge Bench of this Court. One of the learned Judges,
    Thakker, J. held that the provisions of RDDB Act should be
    given priority and primacy over SICA by virtue of Section 34 of
    the RDDB Act as it is a subsequent enactment. Therefore it
 D may be presumed even in the absence of any specific
    provision, that Parliament was aware of all the statutes enacted
    prior thereto; that the non-obstante clause had been inserted
    to ensure expeditious adjudication and recovery of debts due
    to banks and financial institutions. Thakker, J. alsci held that in
 E view of sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the RDDB Act, which
    provides that the provisions of the Act are "in addition to and
    not in derogation of' inter alia SICA, which is an additional
    factor why the RDDBAct shall prevail. Kabir, J. as His Lordship
    then was, held that the non-obstante clause in Section 34(1)
 F contains an exception, to be found in sub-section (2). Sub-
    section (2) provides that the Act shall be in addition to and not
    in derogation of inter alia the SICA. Further, that the overriding
    effect of RDDBAct would have an overriding effect over other
    enactments but supplemental to the provisions of SICA, and
 G therefore, the provisions of SICA would prevail over the
  , provisions of the RDDBAct.
  '
           13. Kabir, J. further held that since the proceedings for
    recovery had long been over, before the Company invoked
    provisions of the SICAAct, the Company would therefore.not
 H be entitled to any relief before the High Court.
KSL&INDUSTRIES LTD. v. M/SARIHANTTHREADS LTD. 1105
               [S.A. BOBDE, J.)

       14. Kabir, J. referred to the following facts for drawing A
this conclusion. It was only on 21.12.05, that the Company filed
a Reference before the BIFR which was dismissed on
10.02.06. Before this, the Recovery Officer had issued a
demand notice under Rule 2 of the Second ·schedule to
the Income Tax Act, 1961 demanding payment of B
Rs. 28,60,87,384/-, as directed by the ORT, Chandigarh in the
final order. Thereafter, several events had taken place, such
as, on 27.10.2004, ORT allowed the auction sale proceedings
but directed it should not be confirmed; on 30.10.04, the
appellant was declared to be the highest bidder and had C
deposited the entire sale price on 11.11.04; in the appeal under
Section 30 of the RDDB Act, the Company moved an
application for setting aside the ex-parte order against fixation
of reserve price and this appeal was allowed on-26.07 .2005
subject to fulfillment of certain terms and conditions. It was  o
observed that the appeal filed by the Company was only against
fixation of the reserve price and not against the final order.
1he Company had not even availed of an appeal under Section
20 of the RDDB Act or for setting aside the sale under Rule 60
of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961 but only E
chose the path for having the auction-sale set aside on the
ground that the reserve price of the Company's assets had
 not been correctly fixed. In effect, proceedings had been
 concluded in favour of the IDBI under Section 19 of the RDDB
Act long before the BIFR came into the scene. That auction F
 sale. of the properties under the RDDB Act was confirmed by
the DRAT before the writ petitions were allowed by the High
Court.                                ·
       15. The Company's first Reference was rejected by the
BIFR and only the second reference made on 15.09.06, had G
been allowed i.e. after ~he High Court's order dated 23.02.06.
Since the recovery proceedings have been concluded in favour
of the appellant and the appellant had also deposited the sale
price, the respondent was not entitled to any relief by virtue of
Section 22 of the SICA before the High Court.                     H
1106         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 14 S.C.R.


 A          16. In the circumstances, both the learned Judges held,
       for different reasons, that the appeal deserves to be allowed
       and the Judgment and Order of the High Court is liable to be
       set aside. Since, there was a difference of opinion on the
       question of law, a reference was made to a larger Bench.
 B          SCHEME AND PURPOSE OF THE SICK
       INDUSTRIAL COMPANIES (SPECIAL PROVISIONS) ACT,
       1985 CSICAJ
         17. The Statement of Objects and Reasons for the Sick
 C Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, sets out
   the following:
             While interpreting which of the two Acts i.e. The Sick
       Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 [SICA]
       or the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial
 0     lnstitutionsAct, 1993 [RDDBAct] should prevail, in view of the
       non obstante clause contained in both, one of the important
       tests is the purpose of the two enactments. It is important to
       recognize and ensure that the purpose of both enactments is
       as far as possible, fulfilled.
 E          18. The SICA was enacted to provide for timely
   determination of a body of experts for providing preventive, ·
   ameliorative, remedial and other measures that would need
   to be adopted to sick companies. The ill-effects of sickness in
   industrial companies such as loss of production, loss of
 F employment, loss of revenue to the Central and State
   Governments and locking up of investible funds of banks and
   financial institutions were of serious concern to the Government
   and the society at large. In order to fully utilize the productive
   industrial assets, afford maximum protection of employment
 G and optimize the use of funds of the banks and financial
   institutions, it was found imperative to revive and rehabilitate
   the potentially liable sick industrial companies.
            19. Multiplicity of laws and agencies made the adoption
   of a coordinated approach for dealing with sick industrial
 H companies difficult. The Sick Industrial Companies Bill was
KSL& INDUSTRIES LTD. v. M/SARIHANTTHREADS LTD. 1107
                [S. A. BOBDE, J.]

introduced in the Parliament to enact legislation for timely     A
determination of a body of experts for providing preventive,
ameliorative, remedial and other measures.
      20. As would appear significant in the scheme of things
relevant to this matter, an important reference is made to the
"multiplicity of laws and agencies" making the adoption of a     B
coordinated approach for dealing with. sick industrial
companies difficult.
      21. The term "sick industrial company" has been defined
to mean an industrial company (being a company registered C
for not less than five years) which has at the end of any financial
year accumulated losses equal to or exceeding its entire net
worth, vide Section 3(o). "Industrial Company" means a
company which owns one or more industrial undertakings, vide
Section 3(e). "Industrial Undertaking" has been defined to mean D
an undertaking pertaining to a scheduled industry carried on
in one or more factories by any company, vide Section 3(f).
     22. In effect a "sick industrial company" is a company
owning one or more industrial undertakings pertaining to a
scheduled industry as contemplated ,by the Industries            E
(Development and Regulation)Act, 1951 (IDRA).
     23. The Act thus aims to revive and rehabilitate, not all
sick companies but those in the schedule to the IDRA,
presumably vital to the economy of the nation.
      24. The Act provides for an Inquiry into whether a F
company is a sick industrial company, an assessment whether
it can be made viable and the preparation and sanction of a
scheme for inter a/ia the financial reconstruction of the sick
industrial company. It provides for the proper management of
the sick industrial company, amalgamation, sale or lease of a G
part or whole of an industrial undertaking of the sick company
etc., vide Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the SICAAct.
      25. The Act confers wide powers on the Board to provide
in the scheme - amalgamation of the sick industrial company
with a transferee company, the alteration of the memorandum      H
1108         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2014] 14 S.C.R.


 A     or articles of association. reduction of the interest or rights of
       the shareholders and for continuation of legal proceedings,
       the sale or lease of the industrial undertaking etc.
               26. It is in this background that Section 22. which provides
       for suspension of legal proceedings, is enacted. To the extent
·B     it is relevant here, the Section reads as under:
             "22. SUSPENSION OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS,
             CONTRACTS, ETC.
             (1) Where in respect of an industrial company, an
 c           inquiry under Section 16 is pending, or any scheme
             referred to under Section 17 is under preparation or
             consideration or a sanctioned scheme is under
             implementation or where an appeal under Section 25
             relating to an industrial company is pending, then,
 D           notwithstanding anything contained in the Companies
             Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or any other law or the
             memorandum and articles of association of the
             industrial company or any other instrument having
             effect under the said·Act or other law, no proceedings
             for the winding-up of the industrial company or for
 E
             execution, distress or the like against any of the
             properties of the industrial company or for the
             appointment of.a receiver in respect thereof and no suit
             for the recovery of money or for the enforcement of any
             security against the industrial company or of any
 F
             guarantee in respect of any Joans, or advance granted
             to the industrial company shall lie or be proceeded with
             further, except with the consent of the Board or, as the
             case may be, the Appellate Authority."
 G           27. The Section is enacted against the backdrop of the
       existing multitude of remedies which creditors may avail of
       against an indebted company and its properties bringing them
       to attacliments, auction sale etc., making it difficult for the
       authorities entrusted with its reconstruction under the SICA to
 H
KSL&INDUSTRIES LTD. v. M/SARIHANTTHREADS LTD. 1109
               [S. A. BOBDE, J.]

evolve a scheme for reconstruction. The Section is also given   A
primacy by way of a non-obstante clause vide Section 32 of
SICA which reads as follows:-
     "32. Effect of the Act on other laws
     (1) The provisions of this Act and of any rules or B
     schemes made there under shall have effect
     notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith
     contained in any other law except the provisions of the
     Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (46 of 1973)
     and the Urban land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 C
     (33 of 1976) for the time being in force or in the
     Memorandum or Articles of Association of an industrial
     company or in any other instrument having effect by
     virtue of any law other than this Act.
     (2) Where there has been under any scheme under this D
     Act an amalgamation of a sick industrial company with
     another company, the provisions of Section 72A of the
     Income-tax Act, 1961 (43of1961) shall, subject to the
     modifications that the power of the Central Government
     under that section may be exercised by the Board E
     without any recommendation by the specified authority
     referred to in that section, apply in relation to such
     amalgamation as they apply in relation to the
     amalgamation of a company owning an industrial
     undertaking with another company."
                                                                F
      28. It may also be noted that the Section, along with the
SICA was enacted in 1985. At that time the remedies which
were later on provided by the RDDB Act 1993, for recovery by
a creditor through an application to the Debt Recovery Tribunal
were not in existence nor contemplated. There is naturally no G
reference to such a mode of recovery in the SICA and neither
is a stay contemplated pf such a proceedings in express
terms. We say this in view of the submission advanced before
us that Section 22 only contemplates a stay of proceedings
for the distress or execution of the properties of the sick H
1110         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 14 S.C.R.


 A     company and suits for recovery and that therefore an
       application for recovery under the RDDB Act cannot be stayed,
       and must proceed. We might also observe that the.
       consequence of accepting the submission that Section 22
       cannot affect or render untenable an applicat.ion for recovery
 B     under the RDDB Act, would result in an anomaly. The
       submission is that Section 22 lays down that only proceeding
       for winding up or execution, distress or the like shall not lie or
       be proceeded with where an enquiry is pending or a scheme
       is under preparation or consideration or a sanction scheme is
 C     under implementation etc.; whereas a proceeding for recovery
       of a debt may proceed. To put it another way, that a proceeding
       for recovery shall lie against a sick company but an order made
       in it could not be executed against any of the properties of the
       industrial company, the effect being that the proceedings may
 D     continue without any consequence. Thus there cannot be any
       execution or distraint against the properties of the company
       but creditors may continue to apply for recovery before the
       DRT. We do not think that such an ,anomalous purpose can be
       attributed to Parliament in the present legislative scheme.
 E     Though there is no doubt that Parliament may expressly bring
       about such a situation if it considers it desirable. Even
       otherwise, it appears that the legislative purpose for
       reconstruction of companies could be thwarted if creditors are
       allowed to encumber the properties of the company with
 F     decrees of the DRTwhile the BIFR is engaged in reviving the
       company, if necessary, by leasing or selling the properties of
       the company for which there is an express power.
         29. Plainly, the purpose of laying down that no
   proceedings for execution and distraint or the like or a suit for
 G recovery shall not lie, is to protect the properties of the sick
   industrial company and the company itself from being
   proceeded against by its creditors who may wish to l?eek the
   winding up of the company or levy execution or distress against
   its properties. It protects the company from all such
 H proceedings. It also protects the company from suits for
 KSL& INDUSTRIES LTD. v. M/SARIHANTTHREADS LTD. 1111
                 [S. A. BOB DE, J.]

  recovery of money or for the enforcement of any security or of A
· any guarantee in respect of any loans, or advances granted to
  the industrial company. But as is apparent, the immunity is not
  absolute. Such proceeding which a creditor may wish to
  institute, may be instituted or continued with the consent of the
  Board or the Appellate Authority. In the Section as originally B
  enacted, the words "and no.suit for the recovery of money or
  for the enforcement of any security ............... "were not there.
  These words appear to have been inserted to expressly
  provide, rather clarify that no suits for the recovery of money
  etc. would lie or be proceeded with against such a company.       c ·
        30. At this juncture, it would apposite to notice the
 judgment of this Court in Kai/ash Nath Agarwal and Ors. Vs.
 Pradeshiya Industrial & Investment Corporation of U.P Ltd.
  & Anr. 1, where this Court considered whether Section 22
 afforded protection to guarantors of the sick company or only D
 to the sick company. It was contended that Section 22 prohibits
 the filing of a suit for recovery of money or for enforcement of
 any guarantee in respect of a loan or advance granted to an
  industrial company. It was claimed that if proceedings for
  recovery through a court of law were prohibited under Section E
  22(1 ), there was no reason that protection should be refused
  when action was sought to be taken without recourse to Court.
  The Court held that the words "proceedings" and "suit" had to
  be construed differently as carrying different meanings, since,
  they had been used to denote different things. The Court F
  concluded that Section 22(1) only prohibits recovery against
  the industrial company and there is no protection offered to
  guarantors against the recovery proceedings.
       31. On the strength of this decision in Kai/ash Nath
 Agarwal (supra) it was contended that the application for G
 recovery against the Company filed under the RDDB Act in
 the execution of which the appellant had purchased the property
 of the Company was neither a "proceeding" nor a "suit" within
 1
  (2003) 4 sec 305
                                                                    H
1112         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2014) 14 S.C.R.


 A  the meaning of Section 22. Therefore, the proceedings in the
    application for recovery remained ineffective by Section 22.
    We find, however, that the judgment in Kai/ash Nath Agarwal
    does not come to the aid of the appellant. That judgment did
    not consider the question that has arisen ill this case. It dealt
 B with the question regarding the scope of protection afforded
    to guarantors under Section 22(1) of the SICA, and held that
    there was no protection afforded to guarantors as distinct from
  · the sick company under Section 22(1), since the expression
    "suit" was used only in relation to sick industrial companies .
 C and not to guarantors. Similarly, the expression )roi::eeding"
    in relation to distress and execution, was used to denote
    something other than a "suit". N<;> such question arises in this
    case.
            · 32. As observed earlier, sub-section (1) of Section 22
 D     may be divided into two parts. In one part, it provides that "no
       proceedings" be instituted for the winding up of the industrial
       company or for execution, distress or the like against any of
       the properties of such industrial company, and in the second
       part it provides that "no suit" for· the recovery of money or for
 E     the enforcement of any security against the indu.strial company
       or of any guarantee in respect of any loans or advances granted
       to the industrial company, "shall lie or be proceeded with further,
       except With the consent of the Board or, as the case may be,
       the Appellate Authority:"
 F       33. Und·oubtedly, the present proceedings viz.
   "application for recovery" cannot specifically be described as
   proceedings for execution, distress or the like against any of
   the properties, but it is certainly a proceeding which results in
   and in fact had resulted in the execution and distress against
 G the property of the Company and is therefore liable to be                 I=
   construed as a proceeding for the execution, distress or the
   like against any of the properties of the industrial company.
   We are of the view that such a construction would be within the
   intendment of Parliament wherever the proceedings for
 H recovery of a debt which has been secured by a mortgage or
KSL& INDUSTRIES LTD. v. M/SARIHANTTHREADSLTD. 1113
                [S.A. BOBDE, J.]

pledge of the property of the borrower are instituted. Surely,    A
there is no purpose in construing that Parliament intended that
such an application for recovery by summary procedure should
lie or be proceeded with, but only its execution be interdicted
or inhibited especially. In this context, it may be remembered
that the proceedings by way of an application for recovery        B
according to a summary procedure as provided under the
RDDB Act are not referred to in Section 22 simply because
the RDDBAct had not then been enacted.
     SCHEME AND PURPOSE OF THE RECOVERY OF
DEBTS DUE TO BANKS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS                     C
ACT, 1993 (RDDB ACT)
      34. In 1993, Parliament passed the Recovery of Debts
due to Banks and Financial lnstitutionsAct, 1993, i.e. the RDDB
Act. The Statement of Objects and Reasons recited that more
than fifteen lakhs of cases filed by the public sector banks and D
about 304 cases filed by the financial institutions involving
recovery of debts of more than        Rs. 5622 crores in dues of·
Public Sector Banks and about Rs. 391 crores of dues of the
financial institutions were pending. The locking of such huge
amounts of public money prevented proper utilisation and E
recycling of the funds forthe development of the country. The
RD DB Act was thus enacted to prevent such stagnation of huge
amounts of public money due to the existing procedure for
recovery of debts. The urgent need to work out a suitable
mechanism through which the·debts of the banks and financial F
institutions could be realised without delay was in the form of
Special Tribunals, which would follow summary procedure.
These Tribunals eventually came to be known as Debt
Recovery Tribunals.
       35. The 'debt' contemplated· by the RDDB Act refers to G
the liability claimed as due, by a bank or a financial institution
from any person, whether secured or unsecured or whether
payable under a decree or order of any civil court or any
arbitration award or under a mortgage and legally recoverable,
vide Section 2 (g). Applications for recovery were required to H
1114       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 14 S.C.R.


 A be made to a Tribunal established under Section 3. Appeals
   were to lie before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 20.
   Upon the adjudication of the application/appeal by the Tribunal,
   the certificate of recovery is made executable by Chapter V
   under Section 25. The Recovery Officer on receipt of the copy
 B of certificate is required to proceed to recover the amount of
   debt specified in the certificate by attachment and sale of the
   movable or immovable property of the defendant etc., vide
   Section 25. Section 18 bars the jurisdiction of any court or any
   authority except the Supreme Court and a High Court, in relation
 c to an application for recovery of debts. due to banks and
   financial institutions. Section 34, with which we are concerned,
   confers an overriding effect on the RDDBAct in the following
   terms:
          "34. Act to have overriding effect.-(1) Save as
 D        provided under Sub-section (2), the provisions of this
          Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything
          inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the
          time being in force or in any instrument having effect
          by virtue of any law other than this Act.
 E        (2) The provisions of this Act or the rules made
          thereunder shall be in addition to, and not in derogation
          of, the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948, the
          State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, the Unit Trust
          of India Act, 1963, the Industrial Reconstruction Bank
 F        of India Act, 1984 and the Sick Industrial Companies
          (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and the Small Industries
          Bank oflndia Act, 1989."
        36. This special law, which deals with the recovery of
 G debts due to banks and financial institutions, makes the
   procedure for recovery of such debts exclusive and even
   unique. The non-obstante clause in sub-section (1) confers
   an overriding effect on the provisions of the RDDB Act
   notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in
 H any other law for the time being in force. Sub-section (2),
 KSL & INDUSTRIES LTD. v. M/S ARI HANT THREADS LTD. 1115
                  [S.A. BOBDE, J.]

however, makes the RDDB Act additional to and not in                        A
derogation or annulment of the five Acts mentioned therein i.e.
Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948; the State Financial
Corporations Act, 1951; the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963; the
Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India Act, 1984 and the Sick
Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.                        B
       37. Sub-section (2) was added to SICA w.e.f.
 17.01.2000 by Act No. 1 of 2000. There is no doubtthat when
anAct provides, as here, that its provisions shall be in addition
to and not in derogation of another law or laws, it means that
the Legislature intends that such an enactment shall co-exist               C
along with the other Acts. It is clearly not the intention of the
Legislature, in such a case, to annul or detract from the
provisions of other laws, The term "in derogation of' means
"in abrogation or repeal of." The Black's Law Dictionary sets
forth the following meaning for "derogation":                               D
       "The partial repeal or abrogation of a law by a later act
       that limits its scope or impairs its utility and force."
        It is clear that sub-section (1) contains a non-obstante
  clause, which gives the overriding effect to the RDDBAct. Sub-            E
  section (2) acts in the nature of an exception to such an
· overriding effect. It states that this overriding effect is in relation
  to certain laws and that the RDDB Act shall be in addition to
  and not in abrogation of, such laws. The SICA is undoubtedly
  one such law.
                                                                            F
      38. The effect of sub-section (2) must necessarily be to
preserve the powers of the authorities under the SICA and save
the proceedings from being overridden by the later Act i.e. the
RDDBAct.
        39. We, thus, find a harmonious scheme in relation to               G
  the proceedings for reconstruction of the company under the
  SICA, which includes the reconstruction of debts and even the
. sale or lease of the sick company's properties for the purpose,
  which may or may not be a part of the security executed by the
                                                                            H
1116         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 14 S.C.R.


 A     sick company in favour of a bank or a financial institution on
       the one hand, and the provisions of the RDDBAct, which deal
       with recovery of debts due to banks or financial institutions, if
       necessary by enforcing the security charged with the bank or
       financial institution, on the other.
 B           40. There is no doubt that both are special laws. SICA is
       a special law, which deals with the reconstruction of sick
       companies and matters inCidental thereto, though it is general
       as regards other matters such as recovery of debts. The
       RDDBAct is also a special law, which deals with the recovery
 C     of money due to banks or financial institutions, through a special
       procedure, though it may be general as regards other matters
       such as the reconstruction of sick companies which it does
       not even specifically deal with. Thus the purpose of the two
       laws is different.
 D       41. Parliament must be deemed to have had knowledge
   of the earlier law i.e. SICA. enacted in 1985, while enacting
   the RDDB Act, 1993. It is. with a view to prevent a clash of
   procedure, and the possibility of contradictory orders in regard
   to the same entity and its properties, and in particular, to
 E preserve the steps already taken for reconstruction of a sick
   company in relation to the properties of such sick company,
   which may be charged as security with the banks or financial
   institutions, that Parliament has specifical.ly enacted sub-
   section (2). The SICA had been enacted in respect of
 F specified and limited companies i.e. those which owned
   industrial undertakings specified in the schedule to the IDR
   Act, as mentioned earlier, whereas the RDDB Act deals with
   all persons, who may have taken a loan from a bank or a
   financial institution in cash or otherwise, whether secured or
 G unsecured etc.
           42. Indeed, the question as to which Act shall prevail must
       be considered with respect to the purpose of the two
       enactments; which of the two Acts is the general or special;

 H
 KSL& INDUSTRIES LTD. v. MISARIHANTTHREADSLTD. 1117
                 [S. A BOBDE, J.] ·

 which is later. It must also be considered whether they can be   A
 harmoniously construed.
        43. The conflictthat is said to arise is between Section
 22 of the SICA which purports to make untenable
 "proceedings" for recovery of the debt against the sick company
 and "suits" for recovery on the one hand and on the other hand B
 Section 34 of the RDDB Act contains an overriding effect to
 its own provision, obviously including those for recovery of
 debts. Some of the decisions of this Court dealing with this
 aspect may be noticed in Ram Narain Vs. Simla Banking &
 Industrial Co. Ltd. 2 • Two statutes, both containing non- C
 obstante clauses providing that the particular provisions of the
 Act shall have effect (notwithstanding anything inconsistent
 contained therein in any other law for the time being in force)
 fell for consideration. The two Acts were the Banking Company
 Act 1949 and the Displaced Persons (DebtAdjustment)Act, D
 1951. This Court gave primacy to the Banking Companies
 Act. While doing so, this Court observed:-
       ''? ...... It is therefore, desirable to determine the
       overriding effect of one or the other of the relevant
       provisions in these two Acts, in a given case, on much E
       broader considerations of the purpose and policy
       underlying the two Acts and the clear intendment
       conveyed by the language of the relevant provisions
       therein."
                                                              F
        44. In a subsequent case, this Court held that the right to
  possession enacted by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was
  not controlled by the Slum Clearance Act and the right could
  be enforced in the manner provided in Section 25-B without
  obtaining prior permission of the competent authority under G
  the Slum Clearance Act. The conflict arose since the Slum
· Clearance Act contained a non-obstante clause, to the effect
  that proceedings for eviction of tenants could not be taken
  without prior permission of the competent authority. The Delhi
 'AIR 1956 SC 614: 1956 SCR 603                                   H
1118       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 14 S.C.R.


 A   Rent Control Act conferred a right under Section 14-Ato recover
     immediate possession in case the landlord had to vacate
     residential premises allotted to him by the Central Government.
     This right was conferred with a non-obstante clause. This Court
     held that for resolving such conflicts, one test whic;h may be
  B adopted is that the later enactment must prevail over the earlier
     one. Having observed that the-relevant provisions of the Delhi
     Rent Control Act had been enacted from 01.12.1975 alongwith
   · a non-obstante clause with the knowledge that the overriding
     provision of the Slum Clearance Act was already in existence, ·
. c the later enactment must prevail. over the former.
           45. In UC Vs. D.J. Bahadur' this Court considered the
     question as to which of the two laws i.e. the Industrial Disputes
     Act, 1947 (the ID Act) and the Life Insurance Corporation Act,
     1956 (the LIC Act), was a special law. Having regard to the
  D doctrine of generalia specialibus non derogant (general
     provisions will not abrogate special provisions), it was
     submitted that an employee of the LIC cannot invoke the
     provisions of the ID Act in his complaint, and the matter would
     have to be decided in accordance with the LIC Act. The Court
  E observed that the LIC Act was "special" as regards
     nationalization of the life insurance business. But however,
     the disputes between employer and employee had to be dealt
     with under the ID Act which was a special Jaw for resolving
     such disputes and if a dispute arose between employer and
  F employee in the Life Insurance Corporation, the LICAct must
     be treated as "general law" arid the ID Act should be treated
     as "special law." The Court thus observed"-
           "52. In determining whether a statute is a special or a
           general one, the focus must be. on the principal subject-
 G         matter plus the particular perspective. For certain
           purposes, an Act may be general and for certain other
         . purposes it may be special and we cannot blur
           distinctions when dealing with finer points of law. In law,

 H '(1981) 1sec315
KSL& INDUSTRIES LTD. v. M/SARIHANTTHREADS LTD. 1119
                [S. A. BOBDE, J.]

     we have a cosmos of relatively no absolutes - so too in A
     life."
     46. In Maharashtra Tubes Ltd. Vs. State Industrial &
Investment Corpn. Of Maharashtra Ltd. 4, the conflict arose
between two special statues i.e. the State Financial
Corporations Act, 1951 and the Sick Industrial Companies B
(Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA). This Court came to
the conclusion that the 1951 Act deals with the pre-sickness
situation, whereas the 1985 Act deals with the post-sickness
situation, and therefore, it was not possible to agree that the
1951 Act is a special statute vis-a-vis the 1985Actwhich is a C
general statute. The Court observed:-
     "Both are special statues dealing with different situations
     notwithstanding a slight overlap here and there, for
     example, both of them provide for grant of financial
     assistance though in different situations. We must, D
     therefore, hold that in cases of sick industrial
     undertakings the provisions contained in the 1985 Act
     would ordinarily prevail and govern."
       47. In a subsequent decision in Allahabad Bank Vs. E
Canara Bank5, this Court held that with reference to the
Companies Act, the RDDB Act should be considered as a
"special law" though both laws could be treated as "special
laws" in respect of recovery of dues by banks and financial
institutions. In a later case the question arose in the context of F
Special Court (Trial of offences Relating to Transactions in
Securities)Act, 1992 and SICA. It was contended that in view
of the special provisions contained in SICA no proceedings
could have been initiated under the Special Court Act. The
Court observed that though Section 32 of the SICA contained G
a non-obstante clause, there was a similar non-obstante
clause in Section 13 of the Special Court Act. The Court
observed:-
'(1993) 2 sec 144
'(2000) 4 sec 406
                                                                  H
1120         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 14 S.C.R.


 A           "9 ... This Court has laid down in no uncertain terms
            that in such an event it is the later Act which must
            prevail."
             48. This Court approved the observations of the Special
       Court to the effect that if the legislature confers anon-obstante
 B     clause on a later enactment, it means that the legislature
       intends that the later enactment should prevail. Further, it is a
       settled rule of interpretation that if one construction leads to a
       conflict, whereas on another construction two Acts can be
       harmoniously construed, then the latter must be adopted.
 c       49. In view of the observations of this Court in the
   decisions referred to and relied on by the learned counsel for
   the parties we find that, the purpose of the two enactments is
   entirely different. As observed earlier, the purpose of one is to
   provide ameliorative measures for reconstruction of sick
 D companies, and the purpose of the other is to provide for
   speedy recovery of debts of banks and financial institutions.
   Both the Acts are "special" in this sense. However, with
   reference to the specific purpose of reconstruction of sick
   companies, the SICA must be held to be a special law, though
 E it may be considered to be a general law in relation to the
   recovery of debts. Whereas, the RDDBAct may be considered
   to be a special law in relation to the recovery of debts and the
   SICA may be considered to be a general law in this regard.
   For this purpose we rely on the decision in UC Vs. Vijay
 F Bahadur (supra). Normally the latter of the two would prevail
   on the principle that the Legislature was aware that it had
   enacted the earlier Act and yet chose to enact the subsequent
   Act with a non-obstante clause. In this case, however, the
   express intendment of Parliament in the non-obstante clause ·
 G of the RDDB Act does not permit us to take that view. Though
   the RDDBAct is the later enactment, sub-section (2) of Section
   34 specifically provides that the provisions of the Act or the
   rules thereunder s~all be in addition to, and not in derogation
   of, the other laws mentioned therein including SICA.
 H
KSL& INDUSTRIES LTD. v. M/SARIHANTTHREADS LTD. 1121
                [S.A. BOBDE, J.)

      50. The term "not in derogation" clearly expresses the A
intention of Parliament not to detract from or abrogate the
provisions of SICA in any way. This, in effect must mean that
Parliament intended the proceedings under SICA for
reconstruction of a sick company to go on and for that purpose
further intended that all other proceedings against the company B
and its properties should be stayed pending the process of
reconstruction. While the term "proceedings" under Section
22 did not originally include the RDDBAct, which was not there
in existence. Section 22 covers proceedings under the RDDB
M                                                                 C
      51. The purpose of the twoActs is entirely different and
where actions under the two laws may seem to be in conflict,
Parliament has wisely preserved the proceedings under the
SICA, by specifically providing for sub-section (2), which lays
down that the later Act RDDB shall be in addition to and not in   D
derogation of the SICA.
      52. We might add that this conclusion has been guided
by what is considered to be one of the most crucial principles
of interpretation viz. giving effect to the intention of the
Legislature. The difficulty arose in this case mainly due to the E
absence of specific words denoting the intention of Parliament
to cover applications for recovery of debts under the RDDB
Act while enacting Section 22 of the SICA. As observed earlier,
the obvious reason for this absence is the fact that the SICA
was enacted earlier. It is the duty of this Court to consider F
SICA, after the enactment of the RDDB Act to ascertain the
true intent and purpose of providing that no proceedings for
execution or distraints or suits shall lie or be proceeded with.
Undoubtedly, in the narrower sense an application for recovery
of debt can be giving a restricted meaning i.e. a proceeding G
which commences on filing and terminates at the judgment.
However, there is no need to give such a restricted meaning,
since the true purpose of an application for recovery is to
proceed to the logical end of execution and recovery itself,
                                                                 H
.1122         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2014] 14 S.C.R.


  A that is by way of execution and distraint. We thus have no
    hesitation in coming to the conclusion that Section 22 clearly
    covers and interdicts such an application for recovery made
    under the provisions of the RDB Act. We might remind
    ourselves of the oft-quoted statement of the principles of
  B contextual construction laid down by this Court in Reserve Bank
    of India Versus Peerless General Finance and Investment
    Co. Ltd. & Ors. 6, where this Court has observed:-
                   "33. Interpretation must depend on the text and
             the context. They are the bases of interpretation. One
 ·C          may well say if the text is the texture, context is what
             gives the colour. Neither can be ignored. Both are
             important. That interpretation is best which makes the
             textualinterpretation match the contextual. A statute is
             best interpreted when we' know why it was enacted. With
  D          this knowledge, the statute must be read, first as a whole
             and then section by section, clause by clause, phrase
             by phrase and word by word. If a statute is looked at, in
             the context of its enactment, with the glasses of the
             statute-maker, provided by such context, its scheme,
  E          the sections, clauses, phrases and words may take
             colour and appear different than when the statute is
             looked at without the 'glasses provided by the context.
             With these glasseswe must look at the Act as a whole
             and discover what each section, each clause, each
  F          phrase and each word is meant and designed to say
             as to fit into the scheme of the entire Act. No part of a
             statute and no word of a statute can be construed in
             isolation. Statutes have to be construed so that every
             word has a place and everything is in its place."
  G           53. Moreover, we have found nothing contrary in the
        intention of the SICA to exdude a recovery application from
        the purview of Section 22, indeed there could be no reason
        for such exclusion since the purpose of the provision is to protect
  H '(1987)1 sec 424
KSL & INDUSTRIES LTD. v. MIS ARI HANT THREADS LTD. 1123
                · [S.A. BOBDE, J.]

the properties of a sick company, so that they may be dealt A
with. in the best possible way for the purpose of its revival by
the BIFR. In State of Punjab Vs. The Okara Grain Buyers
Syndicate Ltd. 7, the Court articulated the importance of
preserving the beneficent purpose of the statute and observed:-
             "14 . ........ We shall therefore proceed to examine B
      the provisions of the Act on the footing that the test for
      determining whether the Government is bound by a
      statute is whether it is expressly named jn the provision
      which it is contended binds it, or whether it "is manifest
      that from the terms of the statute, that it was the intention C
      of the legislature that it shall be bound'.', and that the
      intention to bind would be clearly made out if the
      beneficent purpose of the statute would be wholly
      frustrated unless the Government were bound."
      54. Having answered the reference, we hold that the D
provisions of SICA, in particular Section 22, shall prevail over
the provision for the recovery of debts in the RDDB Act. In
these circumstances, as already directed by the two-Judge
Bench of this Court, the Judgment and Order dated 23.02.06
of the High Court of Delhi is set aside. As far as the writ E
petitions are concerned, whether on the ground that Section .
22 of the SICA acts as a bar to the recovery proceedings under
the RDDBAct or whether the protection of SICA is not available
to the appellant company since the recovery proceedings under
the RDDB Act had been concluded, the writ petitions would. F
have to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. The
present appeal is allowed.

Nidhi Jain                                         Appeal allowed.




7
AIR 1964 SC 669