STATE BANK OF INDIA versus SANTOSH GUPTA AND ANR. ETC.

Citation: [2016] 9 S.C.R. 985 · Decided: 16-12-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH, R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 9 S.C.R. 985 
STATE BANK OF INDIA 
v. 
SANTOSH GUPTA AND ANR. ETC. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 12237-12238 of2016) 
DECEMBER 16, 2016 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.] 
Securitisation and Reconstructi01~ of Financial Assets and 
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - ss. !3(1) & (4), 17A 
and 18B - Application of the Act - To the State of Jammu and 
Kashmir - Whether within legislative competence of Parliament as 
the Act in pith and substance relates to 'transfer of property' not 
'banking' and the same is in direct conflict with s.140 of Transfer 
of Property Act of Jam mu and Kashmir; and whether ss.17 A and 
18B of the Act being the provisions relatable to administration of 
;ustice (which is purely a State subject) would also be ultra vires 
Parliament-:- Held: State of Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part 
of Union of India - By the Constitution Application to Jammu & 
Kashmir Order, 1954, the State adapts all the provisions of the 
Constitution of India together with certain amendments and 
modifications - Art. 246 and Entries 45 and 95 of List I of VII 
Schedule have also been made applicable to State of Jammu and 
Kashmir - Recovery of debts by banks fall within Entry 45 of List I 
of VII Schedule - The Act is relatable to Entry 45 of List I - Any 
enactment made under the State List would have to give wiry to the 
Act by virtue of application of Art. 246 of the Constitution of India 
- Entire Act in pith and substance is referable to Entry 45 List I rlw 
Entry 95 List I - The Act does not deal with 'transfer of property' -
The transfer of property by way of sale or assignment, is only one 
of several measures of recovery of a secured debt owing to a bank 
- It is not correct to first dissect an Act into various parts and then 
refer those parts to different Entries in the legislative Lists - ss.17 A 
and 18B are also referable to Entry 45 and expressly to Entry 95 of 
List I - The Act as a whole including ss.17A and 18B is referable to 
Entries 45 and 95 of List I - Therefore the Act as a whole would 
operate in the, State of Jammu and Kashmir - By virtue of Art. 246 
rlw s.5 of Jammu and Kashmir Constitution, s.140 of Jammu and 
985 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
986 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 
Kashmir Transfer of Property Act has to give way to the i111pugned 
Act - The impugned Act is well within legislative co111petence of 
Parliament - Constitution of India - Arts. 1, 246 and 370, Schedule 
VII List I Entries 45 and 95 - Constitution of Ja111111u and Kash111ir 
- ss. 3 and 5 - Jammu and Kashmir Transfer of Property Act, I977 
- s. 140 - Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 - r.8(5) 
proviso. 
Constitution of lndia: 
Arts. 368 proviso, 370(1){d), Vil Schedule, State List - Whether 
the subject 111entioned in the State List as originally adopted by State 
of Jammu and Kash111ir, were frozen and can never be delegated or 
conferred on the Parliament so long as Art. 370 remains - Held: 
Proviso to Art. 368 as applicable, to the State of Jammu and Kashmir 
allows any constitutional a111endment to be applied to the State with 
its concurrence - The amendment would include either 'addition' 
or 'subtraction' in the State List"- The 'expression 'modifications' 
occurring in Art. 370(1)(d) would not onty mean 'to limit or restrict' 
but even 'to extend or enlarge' - The word 'modification' must be 
given widest meaning. 
Art. 368 proviso and Art.370 - Constitutional amendment -
Application of - To the State of Jammu and Kashmir - Held: As per 
Art. 370 once a matter from either the Union List or the Concurrent 
List is specified by a Presidential order, no further concurrence of 
State is needed - A constitutional amendment is different from an 
ordinary law - The language of Art. 368 proviso is different from 
the language of Art. 370 and have to be applied according to their 
terms. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 It is not correct to say that the Constitution of 
India and that of Jammu & Kashmir have equal status. Article 1 
- of the Constitution of India and Section 3 of the Jammu & 
Kashmir Constitution make it clear that India shall be a Union of 
'States, and that the State of Jammu & Kashmir is and shall be an 
integral part of the Union oflndia. The State of Jammu & Kashmir, 
though a State within the meaning of Article 1 of the Constitution 
of India, has been accorded a special status from the very 
beginning because of certain events tha

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.