DHARANI SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD vs UNION OF INDIA — T.C.(C) No. 66/2018
Case under Section I-B. Status: DISPOSED.
CNR: SCIN010425912018
Filing Date
13-11-2018 03:36 PM
Registration No
T.C.(C) No. 000066 - / 2018
Diary Number
42591/2018
Order Date
02-04-2019
Document Type
Judgement - of Main Case
Neutral Citation
2019 INSC 457
Disposal Type
Disposed Off
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
DHARANI SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD
Adv. BY COURTS MOTION PAREKH & CO.[P-1]
Respondent(s)
UNION OF INDIA
Adv. VANDANA SEHGAL[R-16]
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN
Fixed Date by Court
Fixed Date by Court
Fixed Date by Court
Fixed Date by Court
Fixed Date by Court
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 02-04-2019 | Fixed Date by Court |
| 29-03-2019 | Fixed Date by Court |
| 14-03-2019 | Fixed Date by Court |
| 13-03-2019 | Fixed Date by Court |
| 12-03-2019 | Fixed Date by Court |
Orders in this case
Summary of T.C.(C) No. 000066/2018 - Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India Court Decision The Supreme Court declared the RBI Circular dated 12.02.2018 (regarding stressed asset resolution) ultra vires Section 35AA of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and void. Key Holdings Constitutional Validity: Sections 35AA and 35AB passed constitutional scrutiny—not manifestly arbitrary and sufficiently guided by statutory preamble and provisions. Ultra Vires Finding: The RBI Circular exceeded its authority because: 1. Specific Power Requirement: Section 35AA authorizes directions only in respect of "a default" (specific defaults of specific debtors), requiring Central Government authorization 2. General Application Invalid: The circular applies uniformly to all debts ≥₹2000 crore generally, not to specific individual defaults 3. Absence of Central Government Approval for General Directive: While the 05.05.2017 notification authorized directions on "a default," it did not authorize blanket directives applicable to categories of debtors Core Reasoning - Section 35AA (specific power to trigger insolvency) is separate from Sections 35A/35AB (general power for other resolution methods) - General provisions cannot override specific provisions when statutory scheme clearly separates them - The circular's mandatory 180-day timeline applicable to all large debts violates the requirement for case-specific directions - Expression "issue directions to banking companies generally" present in Section 35A is conspicuously absent in Section 35AA, indicating specific case-by-case application only Consequence All proceedings initiated under the impugned circular, including insolvency filings under Section 7 of the Insolvency Code triggered solely by this circular, are declared non-est (void ab initio). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts