Supreme Court of India

Union of India v Delhi High Court Bar Association

(2002) 4 SCC 27520021 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
The Delhi High Court, on a petition by the Delhi High Court Bar Association, had declared the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 unconstitutional. The Union of India appealed.
Issue
Whether Parliament was competent to enact the 1993 Act and constitute Debt Recovery Tribunals, and whether the Act was otherwise valid.
Held
The appeals were allowed and the Act was upheld. Parliament had competence under Entry 45, List I (banking), which covers recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions, to set up the Tribunals.
Principle
The Recovery of Debts Act, 1993 and Debt Recovery Tribunals are valid under Parliament's power over banking.
Cite this

Facts

  • The Delhi High Court, on a petition by the Delhi High Court Bar Association, had declared the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 unconstitutional. The Union of India appealed.

Issue

  1. Whether Parliament was competent to enact the 1993 Act and constitute Debt Recovery Tribunals, and whether the Act was otherwise valid.

Held

  • The appeals were allowed and the Act was upheld. Parliament had competence under Entry 45, List I (banking), which covers recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions, to set up the Tribunals.

Ratio decidendi

Parliament had legislative competence under Entry 45, List I (banking) to enact the Recovery of Debts Act, 1993 and set up the Debt Recovery Tribunals, because recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions falls within banking.

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

Use for the constitutional validity of the Recovery of Debts Act and the DRTs. Key line: "The DRTs are valid; recovery of bank debts falls within Parliament's power over banking under Entry 45, List I."

Cite this

Citation

Union of India v Delhi High Court Bar Association (2002) 4 SCC 275

Reported: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/522930/. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.