SOMA SURESH KUMAR versus GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 10 S.C.R. 328 · Decided: 12-09-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
[2013] 10 S.C.R. 328 
SOMA SURESH KUMAR 
v. 
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. 
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 614 of 2007) 
SEPTEMBER 12, 2013 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] 
Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial 
Establishments Act, 1999 - ss. 2, 3, 5, 8 and 9 - Writ petition 
C u/Art. 32 - Challenging constitutional validity of the Act - On 
the ground of legislative competence of the State - Held: The 
Bank in question comes within the definition of 'financial 
establishment' uls. 2(c) of the Act - It does not fall in the 
category of institutions excluded from the purview of s.2(c) -
o The object and purpose as well as provisions of the Act are 
pari materia with similar Acts of Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu 
and Pondicherry, the constitutional validity whereof has 
already been upheld - Hence, the Act is held as 
constitutionally valid - Constitution of India, 1950 - Seventh 
E Schedule - List I Entry 45, List II Entry 32 - Tamil Nadu 
Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial 
Establishments) Act, 1997 - Maharashtra Protection of 
Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 
1999 - Pondicherry Protection of Interests of Depositors in 
F 
Financial Establishments Act, 2004. 
The petitioners, erstwhile Directors of Co-operative 
Bank, filed the present writ petitions seeking declaration 
that ss. 3, 5, 8 and 9 of Andhra Pradesh Protection of 
Depositions of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 are 
G unconstitutional and violative of fundamental rights 
guaranteed u/Arts. 14 and 21 of the Constitution. 
H 
Petitioners inter alia contended that the Bank In 
question did not come within the definition of 'financial 
328 
SOMA SURESH KUMAR v. GOVERNMENT OF 
329 
ANDHRA PRADESH 
establishment' u/s. 2(c) of the Act; and that the State did A 
not have legislative competence for enactment of the Act, 
as the subject 'banking' is covered under Entry 45 of List 
I of Seventh Schedule. 
Dismissing the petitions, the Court 
8 
HELD: 1. It is not correct to say that the Bank in 
question does not come within the definition of "financial 
establishment" under Section 2(c) of the Andhra Pradesh 
Protection of Depositions of Financial Establishments Act, 
1999. What has been excluded from that definition is a c 
Company registered under the Companies Act or a 
Corporation or a Cooperative Society owned and 
controlled by any State Government or the Central 
Government. The Society in question does not fall in that 
category. Consequently, the Co-operative Bank in 0 
question is also governed by the provisions of the 
Andhra Act. [Para 13] [338-E-G] 
2. The object and purpose as well as the provisions 
of the Andhra Act are pari materia with that of Tamil Nadu 
Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial E 
Establishments) Act, 1997, the Maharashtra Protection of 
Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 
1999, as well as the Pondicherry Protection of Interests 
of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004. The 
constitutional validity of those legislations has already F 
been upheld. Therefore, the constitutional validity of the 
Andhra Act is upheld. [Paras 10 and 12] [335-C-D; 338-
D-E] 
K.K. Baskaran vs. State, represented by its Secretary, 
G 
Tamil Naduand Ors. (2011) 3 SCC 793: 2011 (3) SCR 527; 
New Horizon Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Government of Pondicherry 
(2012) 10 sec 575: 2012 (8) SCR 874 - relied on. 
R.C. Cooper vs. Union of India (1970) 1 SCC 248: 1970 
(3) SCR 530; Greater Bombay Cooperative Bank and Ors. 
H 
330 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
vs. United Yarn Tex (P) Ltd. and Ors. (2007) 7 SCC 236: 2007 
(8) SCR 763; Vijay C. Pu/ja/ vs. State of Maharashtra (2005) 
4 CTC 705 - referred to. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
Case Law Reference: 
1970 (3) SCR 530 
referred to 
Para 4 
2007 (8) SCR 763 
referred to 
Para 9 
2011 (3) SCR 527 
relied on 
Para 10 
(2005) 4 CTC 705 
referred to 
Para 10 
2012 (8) SCR 874 
relied on 
Para 11 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Under Article 32 of the 
Constitution of India. 
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 614 of 2007. 
WITH 
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 637 of 2007. 
Bina 
Madhavan, 
Praseena 
E. 
Joseph, 
V. 
Santhanalakshmi, A. Venayagan Balan for the Petitioner. 
Rakesh Kumar Khanna, ASG, ATM Rangaramanujam, 
Kiran Bhardwaj, R.K. Verma, Sushma Suri, Seema Thapliyal, 
Shreekant N. Terdal, D. Mahesh Babu, Suchitra Hrangkhawl, 
Amjid Maqbool, Amit K. Nain, B. Ramakrishna Rao, D. Bharathi 
F 
Reddy for the Responden
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.