UCO BANK AND ANR. versus DIPAK DEBBARMA & ORS.

UCO BANK AND ANR. versus DIPAK DEBBARMA & ORS.

The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, a Parliamentary legislation covering banking and sale of secured assets, prevails over Section 187 of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 to the extent of inconsistency, due to principle of...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: UCO Bank and Anr.; Respondent: Dipak Debbarma & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
25 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeals allowed
Legal Topics
Repugnancy Between Central and State Legislation, Conflict of Laws, Federal Supremacy, Sale of Secured Assets by Banks, Scheduled Tribes Land Protection
Constitutional Law Banking Law Land Law Repugnancy Between Central and State Legislation Conflict of Laws Federal Supremacy Sale of Secured Assets by Banks Scheduled Tribes Land Protection

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

UCO Bank and Anr.

Appellant

Dipak Debbarma & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 prevails over Section 187 of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 regarding sale of mortgaged property by banks to non-Scheduled Tribe members
  2. 2 Whether inclusion of Tripura Act of 1960 in Ninth Schedule protects it from being overridden by a Parliamentary statute
  3. 3 Whether Rules 5 and 8(5) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 were violated during auction sale

Ratio Decidendi

The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, a Parliamentary legislation covering banking and sale of secured assets, prevails over Section 187 of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 to the extent of inconsistency, due to principle of federal supremacy embodied in Article 246. Inclusion of the Tripura Act in the Ninth Schedule does not confer immunity from being overridden by dominant Parliamentary law. Sale by bank under the Act of 2002 need not be restricted solely to tribals even if the mortgaged property belongs to a tribal.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed

Orders

  • Impugned order of High Court set aside
  • Sale proclamation and auction remain valid