Shri A.C. Dharmadhikari, Advocate & Anr. v. Delhi High Court Bar Association (AIR 2002 SC 1479). Shri Dharmadhikari, learned & Ors.

Shri A.C. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for petitioner. Shri S.K. Mishra, Assistant Solicitor General for respondent nos. 1 and 4. Shri M. Anilkumar, Advocate for respondent no.5. ------- Writ Petition No.1819 of 2012 Shri A.C. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for petitioner. Shri S.K. Mishra, Assistant Solicitor General for respondent nos.1 and 4. Shri M. Anilkumar, Advocate for respondent no.5. Shri S. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent no.6. Shri I. Damle, Advocate for respondent no.7. Shri P.A. Rajurkar, Advocate for respondent no.8. ---------- CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATED : OCTOBER 9, 2012 The main prayer made by the petitioners in the petitions reads thus : 0910wp1818.12 (a) issue writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other suitable writ, order or direction that impugned provisions under Sec. 3 to Sec. 13 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 are ultra vires Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 50, 232B r/w Arts.

141 and 142 of the Constitution of India and violative of the basic Constitutional Scheme and hence, void ab initio insofar as it establishes the Tribunals and vests important judicial functions in these Tribunals.” It can thus be clearly seen that what is questioned in the petitions is validity of Sections 3 to 13 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The validity of the said Act was already considered by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and another vs. Delhi High Court Bar Association and others (AIR 2002 SC 1479). Shri Dharmadhikari, learned Counsel for the petitioners, in his inimitable style, has tried to urge that in the case of Union of India vs. R. Gandhi {(2010) 11 SCC 1}, the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court while considering constitutionality of the provisions in the first part of Section 10-FD(3)(f) of the Companies Act, 1956 thereby constituting 0910wp1818.12 special Tribunals under the said Act made certain observations, which will have effect on judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and another vs.

Delhi High Court Bar Association and others (AIR 2002 SC 1479) being liable to be held as not laying down a good position of law. The learned Counsel further submits that he would like to advance certain arguments, which were not considered by the Apex Court while upholding validity of the said Act in the case of Union of India and another vs. Delhi High Court Bar Association and others (AIR 2002 SC 1479). We are afraid as to whether even it will be possible for us to entertain such arguments. By judicial hierarchy, the High Courts are bound by the judgments rendered by the Apex Court. Merely because certain observations are made by the larger Bench of the Apex Court while considering validity of the provision of some other statute, the learned Counsel for the petitioners cannot be permitted to argue before this Court that the Apex Court was not correct in upholding validity of the said Act. Equally, it will not be permissible for us to permit an 0910wp1818.12 argument that the contentions, which the learned Counsel desires to advance, were not considered by the Apex Court as the said contentions were not advanced before the Apex Court.

The High Courts are constitutionally bound to follow the law laid down by the Apex Court. In that view of the matter, though the learned Counsel for the petitioners has strenuously urged to hear him, we decline to hear any of the arguments as sought to be advanced on the aforesaid lines. As the Apex Court has upheld validity of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, it would not be open for us now to entertain such arguments re-questioning validity of the said Act, otherwise we might commit contempt of the Apex Court as also of our own Court. The petitions are, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE