BANKING CASE PRESENTATION (1)SUBMITTED BY: KRITIKA GUPTA

BANKING AND FINANCE

M. RAMU V. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ( AIR 1970 MAD 331)THIS CASE IS BASICALLYON SECTION 36-ADOF BANKING REGULATION ACT, 1949( HEREIN REFERRED AS ACT)

SYNOPSIS

BACKGROUND FURTHER ELABORATION FACTS ISSUES JUDGEMENT REFFERED CONCLUSION

BACKGROUND SEC.36-AD OF ACT TALKS ABOUT PUNISHMENT FOR

CERTAIN ACTIVITIES IN BANKING COMPANIES , FURTHE,

1) NO PERSON SHALL-

a) OBSTRUCTING ANY PERSON FROM LAWFULLY ENTERING OR LEAVING A BANK

b) HOLDING DEMONSTRATION WITHIN A BANK

c) ACTING UNDER MINE DEPOSITORS CONFIDENCE IN A BANK

2) IN CONTRAVENTION OF AFORESAID PROVISION WOULD ATTRACT THE PUNISHMENT:-

a) IMPRISONMENT MAY EXTEND TO SIX MONTHS, OR,

b) FINE MAY EXTEND TO 100 RUPEES ,OR, BOTH

FURTHER ELABORATION OF SECTION:

Section merely taking about the obstruction in case where public interest was suffered.

At the time of draft prohibition with respect to demonstration is limited to some distance from the office.

Ultimately, after many criticism held that demonstration within office or place of businees will be held punishable.

Clause (a) is mere repetition of IPC provisions that is wrongful restraint and confinement.

M. RAMU AND ANR. V. GOVT. OF INDIA& ORS. ( AIR 1970 MAD. 331)- BY , KAILASAM, J.,FACTS OF THE CASE ARE HIGHLIGHTEN

FACTS OF THE CASE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ( HEREIN AS GOI)

INTRODUCED IN PARLIAMENT BANKING LAWS AMENDMENT BILL ON 23-2-1967

OBJECTS OF BILL ARE:- 1) TO MAKE EFFECTIVE LINK BETWEEN

INDUSTRIAL HOUSES AND BANK.2) INTRODUCTION OF BANKS TOWARDS

INDUSTRY AND BUSINESS IS TO BE CHANGED AND CREDIT FACILITY SHOULD BE THERE.

3) TO ARREST MONOPOLISTIC TRENDS.4) TO SEE COMPLIANCE OF ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT.

BILL WAS PASSED AND ASSENT WAS RECEIVED FROM PRESIDENT OF INDIA ON 2-1-1969.

BILL WAS BROUGHT INTO FORCE THROUGHOUT INDIA FROM 1-2-1969.

THERE IN THIS BILL SUCH MENTIONED OBECTIVES WERE RELATED TO SECTION 36-AD OF ACT

WRIT PETITION WAS FILED BY EMPLOYEE OF THEINDIAN OVERSEAS BANK LTD, MADRAS FOR ISSUE OF MANDAMUS TO STRIKE DOWN THE PROVISION OF SECTION 36-AD OF ACT AS IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ILLEGAL.

ISSUES WHETHER SECTION 36-AD IS VIOLATIVE OF

ARTICLE 19(1) OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WHICH IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT?

WHETHER ARTICLE 19(1) WOULD INCLUDE RIGHT TO OBSTRUCT A PERSON FROM ENTERING INTO THE PLACE OF BUSINESS ?

WHETHER ANY DEMONSTARTION WHICH IS VIOLENT WILL BE PUNISHABLE?

WHETHER ACTING IN ANY MANNER CALCULATED TO UNDERMINE THE CONFIDENCE OF DEPOSITORS VIOLATING FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT?

HOW THE ARGUMENT AND DECISION TOOK PLACE

REGARDING FIRST ISSUE PETITONER CLAIMS THAT IF THEY ARE PREVENTED FROM PEACEFUL PICKETING OR HOLDING PEACEFULL DEMONSTARTION WILL LEAD TO OBSTRUCTION WOULD AFFECT THERE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.

LEARNED SESSION INTERPRET WORD ‘ DEMONSTARATION’ IN KAMESHWAR PRASAD V. STATE OF BIHAR ( 1962 SCR SUPL(3) 369) I.E VISIBLE IDEAS TO OTHERS TO WHOM IT IS INTENDED TO BE CONVEYED.

THEREFORE, DEMONSTRATION WHICH LEADS TO DISTURBANCE OF PUBLIC TRANQUILITY WILL BE PUNSHABLE AND HENCE NOT BE VIOLATIVE OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.

SO FAR AS SEC. 36-AD(1)(b) SAYS ANY DEMONSTARTION WHICH IS VIOLENT IS VIOLATION FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.

IN PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK LTD. V. ALL INDIA PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK EMPLOYEES FEDERATION ( 1960 SCR(1) 806), THAT IN CASE OF PEACEFUL PEN DOEN STRIKE IS NOT AN OFFENCE AND NOT PUNSHABLE AS WELL.

THEREFORE SECTION MAKES IT CLEAR THAT WHEN DEMONSTRATION IS VIOLENT THEN ONLY IT WILL BE PUNISHABLE AND NOT OTHERWISE.

NOW WITH RESPECT TO SECTION 36-AD(1)(c) , ‘FREEDOM OF SPEECH’ NOT INCLUDE MANNER OF CALCULATED OF CONFIDENCE OF DEPOSITORS WITHOUT REASONABLE EXCUSE

BUT BASICALLY ACT MAKES IT PUNSHABLE WHEN REASONABLE EXCUSE IS NOT THERE AND THERE SECTION 36-AD(2) ATTRACTS.

CONCLUSION

LASTLY , THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE PREAMBLE AND THE OJECTS OF THE AMENDING ACT DO NOT JUSTIFY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36-AD. HENCE,IT WAS SAID IT IS NOT VIOLATIVE OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT AND THE WRIT PETITION WAS DISMISSED.