Supreme Court Quarterly Digest On Banking Law [Jan-March, 2023]

Adverse inference cannot be drawn against a plaintiff merely because he did not produce his bank passbook. Basavaraj v. Padmavathi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 17 : AIR 2023 SC 282 : (2023) 4 SCC 239

'Any' means 'All' : Supreme Court says Centre can demonetise all series of bank notes invoking Section 26(2) of RBI Act. Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1

Audi alteram partem - The application of audi alteram partem cannot be impliedly excluded from the Master Directions on Frauds - The principles of natural justice demand that the borrowers must be served a notice, given an opportunity to explain the conclusions of the forensic audit report, and be allowed to represent by the banks/ JLF before their account is classified as fraud under the Master Directions on Frauds. State Bank of India v. Rajesh Agarwal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 243

Borrower has to pre-deposit 50% of which amount in appeal before drat u/s 18 SARFAESI Act? The Supreme Court explains. Sidha Neelkanth Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Prudent ARC Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 11 : AIR 2023 SC 368

Borrowers have right to be heard before their accounts are classified as fraud - the decision to classify the account as fraudulent must be made by a reasoned order - Since the RBI's Master Directions do not expressly provide for an opportunity of hearing to the borrower, audi alteram partem must be read into the provisions to save them from the vice of arbitrariness. State Bank of India v. Rajesh Agarwal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 243

Burden is on borrower to prove that secured properties are agricultural lands. K. Sreedhar v. Raus Constructions Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 13 : AIR 2023 SC 306

Central Government proposes demonetisation - it must seek the opinion of the Central Board of RBI as RBI is the sole authority to regulate circulation of bank notes and secure monetary stability and generally operate the currency and credit system of the country and to maintain price stability - opinion of the Central Board ought to be an independent and frank opinion - the Central Government can move ahead with demonetisation irrespective of positive or negative opinion of the Central Board, but by enacting a legislation or by way of an Ordinance and not an executive notification. [Para 21] [Dissenting Opinion] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI - Liability to pay interest on money deposited by judgment debtor - If the amount is deposited, or paid to the decree holder or person entitled to it, the person entitled to the amount cannot later seek interest on it - This is a rule of prudence, inasmuch as the debtor, or person required to pay or refund the amount, is under an obligation to ensure that the amount payable is placed at the disposal of the person entitled to receive it. Once that is complete (in the form of payment, through different modes, including tendering a Banker’s Cheque, or Pay Order or Demand Draft, all of which require the account holder / debtor to pay the bank, which would then issue the instrument) the tender, or ‘payment’ is complete. (Para 31) K.L. Suneja v. Manjeet Kaur Monga, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 68 : AIR 2023 SC 705

Constitution of India, 1950; Entry 36 of List I of the Seventh Schedule - power of Central Government to demonetise banknotes - Central Government has the power to demonetise ‘all’ series of bank notes of ‘all’ denominations, even without the recommendation of Central Board; but not in exercise of Section 26(2) - such an extensive power is to be exercised only through a legislative process [legislation/Ordinance (if urgent)] and not by way of an executive act - the Parliament should be involved in the process of implementation of such a scheme of demonetisation. [Para 15.13, 15.4 and 15.22] [Dissenting Opinion] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1

Court Deposit - Courts / Tribunals should mandatorily deposit amounts deposited by litigants with the Registry or Office in a bank account - Supreme Court issues directions - All courts and judicial forums should frame guidelines in cases where amounts are deposited with the office / registry of the court / tribunal, that such amounts should mandatorily be deposited in a bank or some financial institution, to ensure that no loss is caused in the future - These guidelines should be embodied in the form of appropriate rules, or regulations of each court, tribunal, commission, authority, agency, etc. exercising adjudicatory power. (Para 35) K.L. Suneja v. Manjeet Kaur Monga, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 68 : AIR 2023 SC 705

Court Deposit - The Supreme Court directs all courts/tribunals to mandatorily deposit amounts deposited by parties with registry in a bank/financial institution. K.L. Suneja v. Manjeet Kaur Monga, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 68 : AIR 2023 SC 705

Demonetisation decision making process valid, Supreme Court holds by 4:1 majority; Justice Nagarathna dissents. Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1

Demonetisation is not illegal merely because the proposal originated from the central govt; no breach of Sec 26(2) RBI Act. Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1

Demonetisation is not invalid merely because some citizens suffered through hardships. Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1

Discussion in parliament on demonetisation would have given it legitimacy: Justice B.V. Nagarathna. Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1

MSMED Act 'dues' will not prevail over SARFAESI Proceedings. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Girnar Corrugators Pvt. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 12 : AIR 2023 SC 268

Non-banking finance & leasing companies not liable to pay interest tax on instalments paid under hire purchase agreement. Muthoot Leasing and Finance Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 7 : AIR 2023 SC 239

Objective of demonetisation - the Court does not have the expertise to go into the question whether the object with which demonetisation was effected is served or not - mere errors of Government are nor subject to judicial review, only palpably arbitrary ones are declared void. [Para 247 - 252] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1

Period for Exchange of notes - 52 days’ period was not unreasonable - if the time for such exchange are not limited, the high denomination bank notes could be circulated and transferred without the knowledge of the authorities concerned, from one person to another and such transferee would have demand exchange of their notes on any subsequent day - thus, the very purpose of demonetisation would be defeated. [Para 286 - 288] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1

RBI didn't independently apply its mind in recommending demonetisation, Entire exercise carried out in 24 hours : Justice B.V. Nagarathna. Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1

RBI has no independent power to accept demonetised notes beyond the period specified in centre's notification. Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 - Section 26(2) - The decision taken by the Central Government to demonetise is to be based on the recommendation of the Central Board of RBI - RBI is the sole repository of power for the management of currency; it plays a pivotal role in management and issuance of currency notes; dealing with the management and regulation of currency; and in evolving the monetary policy - provision of recommendation by Central Board of RBI acts as a safeguard. [Para 202 - 206] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; Section 26(2) - Central Government may take recourse to the power to demonetise taking into consideration several factors - these factors must have reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved. [Para 151] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; Section 26(2) - does not provide for excessive delegation as there is a safeguard that the power can be used only upon recommendation of RBI - though legislature cannot give up its power in favour of another, in view of the multifarious activities of a welfare State, it cannot work out all the details, thus making it necessarily to delegate the same to the executive - Parliament and State Legislatures may not have specialised knowledge - technical and situational intricacies are better left to expert executive bodies and specialist public servants - mere possibility or eventuality of abuse of delegated powers in the absence of any evidence supporting such claim cannot be a ground to strike down a provision - it can be struck down only if it satisfies the ‘policy and guideline’ test. [Para 186, 188, 190, 193] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; Section 26(2) - Essential Ingredients - i) on recommendation of the Central Board of RBI - ii) the Central Government by notification in the Gazette of India; iii) may declare any series of bank notes of any denomination to cease to be legal tender; iv) with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification; v) to such extent as may be specified in the notification. [Para 15.6] [Dissenting Opinion] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; Section 26(2) - if demonetisation of any bank note takes place under the provision of the Act, it is only by issuance of a notification in the Gazette of India and not by any other method - only the Central Board of RBI is the initiator of the process of demonetisation - the provision has a restricted operation, either the Central Government accepts the recommendation of the Central Board and issue a gazette notification, or refuse to accept the recommendation [Para 15.17, 15.18 and 15.25] [Dissenting Opinion] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; Section 26(2) - on earlier two occasions, when RBI was not in favour of demonetisation, the Government resorted to promulgation of ordinances to demonetise currency notes - merely because on two earlier occasions the Central Government had enacted law to demonetise, does not mean the the word “any'' can be given a restrictive meaning - “any” would mean “all”. [Para 152 - 158] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; Section 26(2) - on recommendation of Central Board of RBI, Central Government may declare “any” series of bank notes of any denomination shall cease to be legal tender with effect from a specific date - the word “any” must be interpreted as “all”, otherwise it would lead to an anomaly - e.g. if there are 20 series of a particular denomination, the Centre cannot demonetise 19 series and leave behind one series to continue as legal tender - an interpretation which nullifies the purpose for which power is bestowed would be contrary to the principle of purposive interpretation. [Para 144 - 150] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; Section 26(2) - Scheme of the Act envisages that the issuance of bank notes, various denomination of bank notes, design and form of bank notes are to be specified by the Central Government ‘only’ on recommendation of the Central Board. [Dissenting Opinion] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; Section 26(2) - the decision-making process is not flawed in law - the duty of the Court is to confine itself to the question of legality - it ought to determine whether a decision-making authority exceeded its powers, committed an error of law, committed a breach of the rules of natural justice, reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would reach or abused its powers - it is not concerned with the manner in which the decision was taken. [Para 215, 226] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; Section 26(2) - two requirements of the provision a) recommendation by the Central Board and b) decision of the Central Government - dictionary meaning of “recommend” is “to advise as to a course of action” or “to praise or command” - the word recommendation ought to be construed in the context in which it is used - in the present context “recommendation” would mean a consultative process between the Central Board and the Central Government - it is to be considered by the Court whether each of the party had disclosed all relevant facts and factors to each other for due consideration. [Para 239 - 245] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; Section 26(2) - when Central Board recommends demonetisation it is only a particular series of bank notes of a particular denomination as recommend under Section 26(2) - the word ‘any’ cannot be read as ‘all’ - if ‘any’ is to be read as ‘all’, it would provided unguided discretion to the Central Board. [Para 15.13] [Dissenting Opinion] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1

SBI Officers Service Rules - When the first dismissal order against a person in service is in force, irrespective of all pending litigations or his age of superannuation, he cannot be deemed to be continuing in service. State Bank of India v. Kamal Kishore Prasad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 42 : (2023) 3 SCC 203

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 13(2), 13(4), 18 - Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993; Section 2(g) - Whatever amount is mentioned in the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, in case steps taken under Section 13(2)/13(4) against the secured assets are under challenge before the DRT will be the ‘debt due’ within the meaning of proviso to Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act - In case of challenge to the sale of the secured assets, the amount mentioned in the sale certificate will have to be considered while determining the amount of pre-deposit under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act - In a case where both are under challenge, namely, steps taken under Section 13(4) against the secured assets and also the auction sale of the secured assets, in that case, the “debt due” shall mean any liability (inclusive of interest) which is claimed as due from any person, whichever is higher -The borrower can take the benefit of the amount received by the creditor in an auction sale only if he unequivocally accepts the sale. In a case where the borrower also challenges the auction sale and does not accept the same and also challenges the steps taken under Section 13(2)/13(4) of the SARFAESI Act with respect to secured assets, the borrower has to deposit 50% of the amount claimed by the secured creditor along with interest. (Para 13-16) Sidha Neelkanth Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Prudent ARC Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 11 : AIR 2023 SC 368

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 26E - Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006; Sections 15 - 23 - 'Priority’ conferred / provided under Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act would prevail over the recovery mechanism of the MSMED Act. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Girnar Corrugators Pvt. Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 12 : AIR 2023 SC 268

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 14, 17 - Neither District Magistrate nor Metropolitan Magistrate would have any jurisdiction to adjudicate and/or decide the dispute even between the secured creditor and the debtor. If any person is aggrieved by the steps under Section 13(4) / order passed under Section 14, then the aggrieved person has to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal by way of appeal / application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. (Para 10) Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Girnar Corrugators Pvt. Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 12 : AIR 2023 SC 268

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 31(i) - When it was the case on behalf of the borrowers that in view of Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act, the properties were agricultural lands, the same were being exempted from the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, the burden was upon the borrower to prove that the secured properties were agricultural lands and actually being used as agricultural lands and/or agricultural activities were going on. (Para 7-8) K. Sreedhar v. Raus Constructions Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 13 : AIR 2023 SC 306

Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017 - the purpose of the Act was to extinguish the liabilities of the SBNs which have ceased to be legal tender with effect from 09.11.2016 - Section 4 is a complete code in itself - Section 4(1) empowers the Central Government to provide grace period - under Section 4(2), RBI is required to satisfy whether a person seeking to take benefit of grace period is entitled after satisfying that the reasons for the delay are genuine - Section 4(2) cannot be read independently - if the Central Government finds that there exists any class of persons to whom benefit under Section 4 is to be extended it has the discretion to do so - RBI does not have independent power under Section 4(2) to accept the demonetised notes beyond the period specified in the notification. [Para 299, 302 - 303] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1

Supreme Court by 4:1 majority holds that the decision-making process behind the demonetisation of Rs.500 and Rs.1000 currency notes in 2016 was lawful - Justices S Abdul Nazeer, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian in majority - Justice BV Nagarathna in minority. Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1

Test of Proportionality - a) it is designated for a proper purpose; b) the measures undertaken to effectuate such a limitation are rationally connected to the fulfilment of that purpose; c) measures undertaken are necessary, there are no alternative measures; and d) there needs to be a proper relation between importance of achieving the purpose and the social importance of preventing the limitation on the constitutional right - the purpose of demonetisation was elimination of fake currency; black money and terror financing, which is a proper purpose - there is a reasonable nexus between the measure of demonetisation with the purpose of addressing issues of fake currency bank notes, black money, drug trafficking and terror financing - court does not possess the expertise to decide what alternative measure could have been undertaken - there is a proper relation between importance of curbing the menace of fake currency, black money, drug trafficking and terror financing and demonetisation of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 notes - even if there was reasonable restriction, it was in the larger public interest. [Para 266 - 276, 279 - 281] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1

Whether demonetisation achieved its objectives is not relevant to decide its legality. Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1