Supreme Court: GPF Nomination in Favour of a Parent Becomes Invalid Once the Employee Marries  ||  Supreme Court: Candidate Not Disqualified if Core Subject Studied Without Exact Degree Title  ||  Supreme Court: Stamp Duty Relief for Co-Operative Societies Cannot Depend on Extra-Legal Verification  ||  Delhi High Court: Allegations of Forgery Alone Do not Bar NCLT From Examining Company Records  ||  J&K&L HC: Only Revenue Authorities Can Handle Agrarian Resumption; Civil Courts Cannot Intervene  ||  Delhi HC: CAPF Candidate's Height of 164.6 Cm Can be Rounded to 165 Cm; Rejection Prima Facie Illegal  ||  NCLT Mumbai: Bank Cannot Retain OTS Earnest Money After Accepting a Resolution Plan  ||  Supreme Court: Imminent Death Not Required For a Statement to Qualify as Dying Declaration  ||  SC: HC Cannot Grant Pre-Arrest Bail Without Quashing FIR; Accused Must Approach Sessions Court First  ||  SC: Agreed Interest Rate Cannot Be Challenged as Exorbitant; Arbitrator Cannot Override Contract    

Kalyan Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. v. State of Gujarat and ors. - (15 Jan 2016)

No SSNL-ing out of this security

Constitution

The Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited (Conferment of Power to Redeem Bonds) Act, 2008 being held invalid may bring rejoicing to those left feeling shortchanged by the government’s decision to prematurely pay off the bonds, but the Court’s deliberation was seemingly anything but along commercial lines. Discussing the subjects under the State and Concurrent lists of the Constitution, the Court was of the opinion that though the State Legislature enacted a law which was in ‘pith and substance’ within the legislative field earmarked for it, enacting such competent law the same encroached upon law made by the Union Legislature. Such encroachment being neither incidental nor negligible the Act of 2008 was ‘repugnant’. Gujarat’s Act of 2008 was found to alter contractual terms and conditions between a company and its investors. Thus, laws in conflict with the Act of 2008 were the Securities Contract (Regulation) Act, 1956, Security Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 and Indian Companies Act, 1956.

SSNL had issued (very) deep discounted bonds in 1993, backed by State guarantee, for Rs.3,600 – with a redemption value of Rs.1,11,000 after 20 years. With liability on the undertaking looming to over Rs.7,000 crore, the 2008 Act was introduced by the State government to reduce purported interest and redeem the bonds prematurely – reducing nearly by half its payout. Despite nulling the Act, the Court’s order is suspended pending opportunity of appeal before the Supreme Court.

Relevant : Vijay Kumar Sharma Vs State of Karnataka MANU/SC/0368/1990 G.P. Stewart Vs B.K. Roy Chaudhury MANU/WB/0202/1939 Seventh Schedule Constitution Act

Tags : SSNL   PREMATURE PAYMENT   BOND  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved