Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: RAM NAIK in C.Bright vs ) The District Collector on 8 March, 2019Matching Fragments
13. Mr C. Jawahar Ravindran, learned counsel for the Bank in W.P. No. 13726 of 2019, thereafter, made submissions. Once again, he submitted that orders passed under Section 14 are ministerial and not judicial. He referred to and relied upon the judgment reported in Bachahan Devi vs. Nagar Nigam, Gorakhpur (2008) 12 SCC 372 http://www.judis.nic.in and, in particular, paragraph 17 and 18 thereof with regard to the principle that the words " shall" and " may" are not conclusive as to whether a provision is directory or mandatory. He further submitted that the bank has no control over the district magistrate and that, therefore, great prejudice would be caused to secured creditors if the time limit is construed as mandatory and not directory. He further submitted that no substantive rights are affected as regards the borrower, guarantor or lessee if the specified time limit is exceeded. He also referred to the order in the Arockiaraj case (cited supra) wherein, a Full Bench of this Court, at paragraph 16 and 18, held that there is no adjudication of rights in a proceeding under Section 14. He also referred to and relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sharif-ud-Din vs. Abdul Gani Lone AIR 1980 SC 303, at paragraph 9, and in State of Mysore vs. Narasimha Ram Naik AIR 1975 SC 2190, at paragraph 10, in order to contend that provisions such as section 14, as amended, should be construed as directory and not mandatory. He also referred to and relied upon the judgement is reported in Karnal Improvement Trust vs. Parwash Wanti wherein it was held, at paragraph 11, that it is sufficient if a directory enactment be obeyed substantially. He also referred to Topline Shoes Ltd. vs. Corporation Bank (2002) 6 SCC 33, at paragraph 7 and 8, wherein the time limit for filing the version under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was held to be directory and the judgement in Salem Advocate http://www.judis.nic.in Bar Association vs. Union of India (2005) 6 SCC 344, at paragraph 14, where the time limit for filing the written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC was held to be directory.