Tag: Debt Recovery

Sunil Poddar and ORS Vs Union Bank of India-08/01/2008

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA JUDGMENTS

Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993—Section 22(2)(g)—Transfer of suit—Ex parte decree—Notice sent to the old address though new address was available—Advertisement also published in a Hindi daily—Defendants aware of the proceedings before the Civil Court—It was not necessary for the Bank to get summonses published in a newspaper after the matter was transferred in accordance with law to the DRT—Actual service of summons is not required if (i) he had notice of the date of hearing of the suit; and (ii) if he had sufficient time to appear and answer the claim of the plaintiff—Impugned order affirmed.

Gottumukkala Venkata Krishamraju Vs. Union of India & Ors. [ALL SC 2018 SEPTEMBER]

SEPTEMBER 07, 2018 : Ordinarily wherever the word ‘substitute’ or ‘substitution’ is used by the legislature, it has the effect of deleting the old provision and make the new provision operative. The process of substitution consists of two steps: first, the old rule is made to cease to exist and, next, the new rule is brought into existence in its place. The rule is that when a subsequent Act amends an earlier one in such a way as to incorporate itself, or a part of itself, into the earlier, then the earlier Act must thereafter be read and construed as if the altered words had been written into the earlier Act with pen and ink and the old words scored out so that thereafter there is no need to refer to the amending Act at all. No doubt, in certain situations, the Court having regard to the purport and object sought to be achieved by the Legislature may construe the word “substitution” as an “amendment” having a prospective effect.