P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

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 2024 - All Rights Reserved