Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2001 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2001 (1) TMI 1018 - GUJARAT HIGH COURTSeeking grant of stay on proceedings - petitioner's application for stay of proceedings was rejected on the ground that the provisions of the Bombay Relief Undertaking Act, 1958 (BRU Act) cannot prevail over the Recovery Of Debts Due To Banks and Financial Institutions Act,1993 - HELD THAT:- If the object of BRU Act is kept in view along with the object of the DRT Act, it is apparent that there is no conflict between two Acts and both can be read harmoniously to operate together. As stated by the Apex Court, the BRU Act is framed for the purpose of resurrecting and rehabilitating industrial undertakings by temporarily suspending remedies to enforce fulfillment of obligations and liabilities so as to prevent unemployment and thus give immunity from legal actions so as to render working of such undertakings in smooth and effective manner. At the same time the DRT Act has been brought on the statute book to subserve the purpose of protecting public money of which the banks, and financial institutions are custodian, and to recover dues of such money expeditiously; if that is so, both the statutes are beneficial in nature with an underlying public purpose. Under the BRU Act what is suspended is the remedy against the right to enforce the liabilities which have already been incurred and in the event of notification prevailing over the DRT Act all that happens is that the undertaking is permitted to run and there is no question of public money being siphoned away in the interregnum. This petition is required to be entertained not only because the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction but also for "any other purpose"; namely, to further the legislative intent instead of frustrating it. In view of what is stated hereinbefore, we reject the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondent caveators. No observations may be taken to be final on merits, because the said observations have been made only for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether we could entertain the petition or not in view of the preliminary objections - Rule returnable on 22.02.2001.
|