CYBERSYS INFOTECH LTD. Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition wherein the Petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated October 16, 2008 (annexure P5), gives rise to more than one interesting questions of law but not so easily answerable.

(2.) THE facts may be noticed briefly:

(3.) IT is then argued that the provisions of the SARFAESI Act have no supervening effect and do not apply to any hire -purchase or lease or a contract in which no security interest has been created (Ref.: Sections 13(13) and 31(e) of the SARFAESI Act). Reliance is also placed upon Section 37 of the SARFAESI Act which provides that the provisions of the Act are in addition to and not in derogation of the Companies Act, 1956. It is suggested that the non obstante clause contained in Section 35, giving overriding effect to the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, needs to be read together with Section 37 of the said Act. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon (i) Krishan Singh Rana v. Harayana State Industrial Development, [2001] 1 PLR 149; (ii) Rajasthan Financial Corporation v. Official Liquidator : [2005] 128 Comp Cas 387 (SC) : JT 2005 12 (SC) 156; (iii) Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. v. Official Liquidator, High Court of Kerala : [2006] 133 Comp Cas 915 (SC) : JT 2006 12 SC 603; (iv) LOIL Continental Foods Ltd. v. Punjab Wireless Systems Ltd. (in liquidation) : [2008] 143 Comp Cas 619 (P&H); and (v) M.V. Janardhan Reddy v. Vijaya Bank : [2008] 144 Comp Cas 1 (SC), to buttress his contentions.