UCO BANK AND ANR. versus DIPAK DEBBARMA & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 11 S.C.R. 723 · Decided: 25-11-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] II S.C.R. 723 
UCO BANK AND ANR. 
v. 
DIPAK DEBBARMA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No.11247 of 2016) 
NOVEMBER25,2016 
[RANJAN GOGOi AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.) 
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and 
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - s.13 - Tripura Land 
Revenue and Land Rejorms Act, 1960 - s.187 - The Act of 2002 
provides for sale of immovable properties offered as security for a 
loan advanced, without any restriction as to the class or category 
of buyers, is in infraction of s.187 of the Tripura Act of 1960, where 
there is embargo on sale of mortgaged properties by the bank to 
any person who is not a member of a Scheduled Tribe - Propriety 
of - Held: The Act of 2002 enacted by the Union Parliament is 
referable to Entry 45 of List I, whereas the Tripura Act can be traced 
to Entries 18 and 45 of the State List - In event the incidental 
encroachment conflicts with legislation actually enacted by the 
dominant power, the dominant legislation will prevail - In instant 
case, the conflict is between the Central and the State Act - The 
dominant legislation being the Parliamentary legislation i.e. the Act 
of2002, the provisions of the TripuraAct of 1960, pro tanto, (s.187) 
would be invalid 'to the extent it is inconsistent with the Act of 
2002 - Conflict of Laws - Constitution of India -Arts: 31-B, 246, 
254; and Seventh Schedule - List I, Entry 45 and List JI, Entries 18 
and 45. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The situation ofrepugnancy or inconsistency 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
as in the present case is between to a subsequent Central law 
G 
(Act of 2002) covered by Entry 45 of List I and an earlier State 
law (Tripura Act of 1960) relatable to Entries 18 and 45 of List 
II. [Para 9) [730-C) 
H 
723 
724 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
f2016111 S.C.R. 
A 
1.2 In interpreting Article 246 of Constitution of India 
regard must be had to the constitutional scheme which visualises 
a federal structure giving full autonomy to the Union Parliament 
as well as to the State legislatures in their respective/ demarcated 
fields of legislation. The problem may, however, become a 
B little more complex thiln what may seemingly appear as the 
two legislations may very well be within the respective domains 
of the concerned legislatures and, yet, there may be intrusion 
into areas that fall beyond the assigned fields of legislation. In 
such a situation it will be plain duty of the Constitutional Court to 
C see if the conflict can be resolved by acknowledging the mutual 
existence of the two legislations. If that is not possible, then by 
virtue of the provisions of Article 246(1), the Parliamentary 
legislation would prevail and the State legislation will have to give 
way notwithstanding the fact that the State legislation is within 
D the demarcated field (List II). This is the principle of federal 
supremacy which Article 246 of the Constitution embodies. 
The said principle will, however, prevail provided the pre-
condition exists, namely, the Parliamentary legislation is the 
dominant legislation and the State legislation, though within its 
own field, has the effect of encroaching on a vital sphere of the 
E 
subject or entry to which the dominant legislation is referable. 
F 
G 
H 
(Para 11) (731-B-E] 
State of West Bengal and Ors. vs. Committee for 
Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and 
Ors. 2010 (2) SCR 979: 2010 (3) SCC571; Re. Special 
Reference No. I of 2001 2004 (3) SCR 534: 2004 (4) 
SCC 489; ITC Ltd. vs. Agricultural Produce Market 
Committee and Ors. 2002 (1) SCR441: 2002 (9) SCC 
232; S.R. Bomai vs. Union of India 1994 (2) SCR 
644 : 1994 (3) sec 1 - relied on. 
Mis Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Ors. vs. State 
of Bihar and Ors. 1983 (3) SCR 130: 1983 (4) SCC 
45; State of W.B. vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd. and Ors. 
2004 (1) SCR 564 : 2004 (10) sec 201; Vishal N. 
Kalsaria vs. Bank of India & Ors. 2016 (1) SCR 419 : 
2016 (3) sec 762 - referred to. 
UCO BANK AND ANR. v. DlPAK DEBBARMA & ORS. 
725 
2.1 In the present case the conflict between the Central 
A 
and the State Act is on account of an apparent overstepping by 
the provisions of the State Act dealing with land reform into an 
area of banking covered by the Central Act. The test, therefore, 
would be to find out as to which is the dominant legislation having 
regard the area of encroachment. [Para 15] [735-E-F] 
B 
2.2 The Act of 2002 is relatable to the Entry of banking 
which is included in List I o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.