Open Source in Biotechnology

Open source is the current buzzword in the field of biotechnology. The concept was borrowed from the innovative ideas of open source software which is an anti-thesis to proprietary software. Proprietary software is characterized by keeping source code secret together with contractual restrictions on the use of the software, plus a reliance on the negative right aspects of copyright and other relevant Intellectual Property law. Open source, to the contrary, rests on collaborative development and disclosure of source code, subject to various terms and conditions. Open Source licensing is a style of intellectual property management that has evolved in the past half-decade out of the Free Software movement, initiated in the early 1980s in response to restrictive copyright licensing practices adopted by commercial software developers. The Open Source approach seeks to preserve ongoing community access to proprietary software tools without precluding or discouraging commercial involvement in their development. Open source codes are becoming more and more common. They are used by companies involved in bioinformatics, but they are used in analytical programs and for other purposes by more standard biotech companies.[1] ‘Open Source Biotechnology’(OSB) refers to the possibility of extending the principles of commerce-friendly, commons-based peer production exemplified by Open Source software development to the development of research tools in biomedical and agricultural biotechnology. This idea was proposed as a feasible solution to the problems arising out of the complex relationship between Intellectual Property Owners and Intellectual Property Users. The open source approach to biotechnology requires participants to put self-interest aside in the pursuit of innovation and potential downstream benefits.[2] Scientists “are free to use the technique without commercial restrictions, but must share any improvements they make to this scientific ‘toolkit’”.[3] The penchant for innovation and development has paved way for the adoption of open source model to subjects other than computer software. Though the subject matter of software and biotechnology differ entirely, there is a common thread connecting them. Both software and biotechnology are emerging fields of study and there are some important parallels between the two fields.  Firstly, the application of computer software and methodologies to solve biological problems. Indeed, the open development movement in some areas of biotechnology, such as computational biotechnology, is largely an extension of the Free and Open Software Movement (FOSS).[4] Secondly, a move from the specific focus of the software interface to an effort to ensure that the biotechnology tools required for research and innovation are openly available. Though the former initiative would make biotechnology technologically sound and efficient the latter move would be a catalyst for development of the “under-served” communities.  Many key innovations in biotechnology are protected by patents, but software source code was historically not regarded as patentable subject matter, instead being protected under copyright law as original works of authorship. Both the OSB and FOSS movements are reactions to the proliferation of the Intellectual Property Rights and to concerns that Intellectual Property Rights may restrict research and access to new innovations. These concerns stem from a similar basis: both software and biotechnological innovation are often cumulative and sequential, and innovations in both areas often constitute research tools[5]. Comparison of the developments in biotechnology with the nowadays popular software, such as Linux and others, would easily suggest that the world is moving towards “open source” biological systems, i.e., they are available for modification by anyone.[6] Open source biotechnology appears as a response to the dissatisfaction of researchers with the limits placed on innovation today from the combination of restriction and secrecy. The approach of biotechnology toward open source is intended to abolish, or at least reduce, problems of access to scientific knowledge and research tools associated with the proliferation of intellectual property rights and high transaction costs[7]. A detailed, realistic model of open source biotechnology can only be developed by tapping into the ideas and experience not only of those who are already engaged in the field of research and development, but also of those who are not. Clarifying the relationship between the generic open source principles and realities of biotechnology research and development will also help debunk a number of common objectives to the feasibility of open source biotechnology that are based on either factual misconceptions or faulty logic.[8] The main idea behind open source biotechnology is to share the research with a wide community of scientists and they sign agreements that trade patents for permanent access to the tools of research and database. The benefits that could be reaped by the open concept include possibly diminished costs, greater research freedom, greater quality in the developed innovations and increased speed of making new products available to final consumers. “Patent transparency is the life blood of new open source”[9] Borrowing concepts from the open source software movement, the open source projects create cooperative exchanges in which life science inventions are openly available to a broad research community.[10] Open source biotechnology projects require participants to agree that advances in the technology must remain as openly available as the original technology. It allows patenting and obtaining of royalties from commercialization of a product but leaves the patented technology to open access. Access is open to all including private sector enterprises, with an obligation for royalty sharing in the event of commercialization of a research product using the patented technology, provided they do not restrict access to further research and improvement. This is facilitated by distributing the patented research tools along with an open general license incorporating these conditions. Open source makes the availability of technological innovations to the public at a rapid pace, thereby making it available for public benefit. The very objective of patent is being accentuated by this policy. In standard-setting, no open source mechanism exists in which the public can clearly see the process and is welcome to be part of it. This would assume an educated public, at least to some degree, so a truly open source mechanism could only be implemented upon the shoulders of a broader public education mechanism.[11] Open source patent systems share the goal of promoting free dissemination of biotechnological research. The aim is to foster an environment of sharing between inventors and the public rather than market place monopolies. Open source systems can be directed at end products or research tools used to develop products. Some consider open source to represent a grass root movement to return to pre-commercialization sensibilities about scientific research and development, where there was greater ethos of freely sharing scientific information among members of the scientific community.[12]

An Australian scientist, Richard Jefferson, who heads the non-governmental organization, Cambia (Centre for the Application of Molecular Biology to International Agriculture), has evolved an innovative open source solution to meet intellectual property constraints in   agbiotech[13]. CAMBIA develops and patents technologies for all needs of plant biotechnology. It licenses the use of their technologies, with a royalty free license, provided that any improvements on the technology be made publicly known and be license free. This is akin to open source Linux computer software. Having the technologies as “open source” leads to what they call “collaborative invention” as all biotechnologists working with the open source material further develop it for all and innovations are quickly disseminated, in stead of remaining proprietary knowledge within a company. This can be of distinct advantage to those trying to increase crop diversity, by further domesticating less-grown crops, especially those in the developing countries where resources are thin.[14]The open source agbiotech is not advocating against patents but preaches the use of patents to ensure that research is not hindered yet return on investment is ensured. It advocates patenting of research tools as leaving it in the public domain would enable a patent holder to command control over development of a product. The quid pro quoarrangement is that, in return of the open access there is an obligation to pay royalty in the event of commercialization of the patented technology and there should be no restriction on access to further research and improvement. This is facilitated by distributing the patented research tools along with an open general license incorporating these conditions. Open source agricultural research facilitates innovation by small biotechnology companies by promoting open access to technologies. This will enable development of locally suited technologies and reduce dependence on giant agribusiness conglomerates.

The BiOS (Biological Innovation for Open Society) Initiative is also known as Open Source Biotechnology. The BiOS model has resonance with the Open Source software movement-well known for the successes such as Linux and has spurred faster innovation, greater community and participation, and new robust business that break monopolies and foster fair competition.[15]

By analogy with FLOSS, Open Source Biotechnology (OSB) incorporates a distinctive approach to[16]:

• Developing new biotechnologies.

The characteristic mode of development of new biotechnologies is bazaar governance also termed as ‘commons based peer production’. Defining features of this mode of production include

(1)    Integration of contributions from a broad range of participants (individuals, commercial firms and state or private non-profit organizations);

(2)   Diverse motivations to contribute, none of which rely on exclusionary property rights.

(3)   Coordination of contributions through self-selection for tasks on the basis of freely accessible information about the object of production itself, as distinct from direction by superiors in a hierarchy or self-selection on the basis of price signals;

(4)   Low barriers to engagement: technology users are free to become developers according to their own incentives and capacities, irrespective of formal qualifications and without the necessity of making any long-term commitment; and

(5)   Sharing of contributions on terms that permit broad (though not necessarily unlimited) freedom of access and freedom to operate.

In real life OSB projects, bazaar governance would predominate but would coexist with firm, market and network structures enforcing a mix of other (private) incentives. These private incentives could be further supplemented by collective action style incentives and public subsidies of the kind that already support biotechnology research and development (R & D).

• Open Source Licensing

OSB is distinct from ‘open access’ or ‘public domain’ regimes in which innovators refrain from obtaining Intellectual Property Rights or other forms of proprietary or quasi-proprietary protection for their innovations. In OSB, as in FLOSS, contributions are legally owned by the innovators or their assignees but are licensed to all comers on terms that, at a minimum, offer a credible commitment to provide ongoing access to the licensed technology and guarantee a level playing field between licensor and licensee with respect to freedom to operate with the licensed technology.

Open Source licenses are intrinsically and radically pro-competitive. Optionally, OSB licenses may also impose an obligation on licensees to on-license improvements to the technology on the same terms as the original license. Such an obligation would normally apply only to a defined subset of improvements and would not apply to any improvements that are reserved by the licensee/developer solely for in-house use. This mechanism inspired by a subset of FLOSS licenses known as ‘copyleft’ or ‘reciprocal’ licenses, is designed to give both licensors and licensees (in their capacity as licensors of any improvement technologies) ongoing access to a dynamic, legally protected technology commons incorporating  updated versions of the original technology as well as any new technologies based on it.

• Commercialization

A key feature of the OSB approach that distinguishes it from pre-existing forms of bazaar governance (typified by the practices underpinning traditional publicly funded scientific research) is the nature of the relationship it fosters between the commercial and noncommercial contributors.

Traditionally bazaar-style production has frequently involved the transfer of commercially valuable technologies from public and nonprofit sectors without fair compensation and/or adequate recognition of the substantial public subsidy thereby indirectly provided to private/corporate players. In OSB, the relationship between commercial and noncommercial participants would be synergistic and symbiotic, not parasitic. In other words, non-commercial contributors would provide opportunities for commercial players to enhance their profits while commercial players would bring private resources to the production of public knowledge.

The objective of open source biotechnology is to break the grip and monopoly of huge multi nationals on the tools of innovation. Thus, the balance is shifted from the rich and powerful to the poor, underserved communities. If the multi nationals are allowed to hold the basic tools and gene sequence that are the operating systems of life, promising new sectors will be left undeveloped.[17]About 20 percent of the human genome is controlled by patents, of which about two-thirds are owned by private firms. Taking a collaborative open-source approach could speed efforts to reduce hunger and disease.[18] The patenting of ‘enabling technologies’ affects the development of crops by research institutions, whether private or public. Further, applied agricultural research involves derivative development on existing varieties and with each incremental improvement new Intellectual Property rights get added resulting in multiple Intellectual Property holders on innovations. The result is a situation where a single institution will not be able to provide freedom to operate with a particular technology or invention.[19] Research in the field of biotechnology is expensive, partly because researchers need to purchase even the right to research from a dozen related patent-holders, even when there is little chance of creating a marketable product from the research.

The notion of ‘copyleft’ which envisages free study, copy, distribution and modification of software is applicable only in the case of bioinformatics. But, the other research activities in biotechnology are subject to patent rights and hence ‘copyleft’ is not applicable. Although OSB entails fewer transaction costs than a conventional proprietary approach, it does not eliminate IP-related transaction costs altogether. Unlike a fully ‘public-domain’ or ‘open access’ approach, OSB does involve IP ownership and does require technology users to enter into a license contract. In addition, copyleft-style open source licenses place conditions on the distribution of downstream technologies that, despite their nonproprietary purpose, do limit freedom to operate with respect to those technologies.[20]

Patent is an incentive in the form of limited monopoly granted by the State to the inventor for the disclosure of his information. The limited monopoly grants the inventor economic rewards by way of manufacture, use, sell or import of a product or process for 20 years. The patent law recognizes the exclusive right of a patentee to gain commercial advantage out of his invention. This is to encourage the inventors to invest their creative faculties, knowing that their inventions would be protected by law and no one else would be able to copy their inventions for a certain period during which the inventor would have exclusive rights. Thus, patents grant economic rewards for the promotion of invention. The patent grant provides the owners of patents with a period of market exclusivity, during which they can include a royalty component to out-license their technology in exchange for upfront fees and/or royalty sharing. In this way, patents provide the necessary financial incentive to develop new technology commercially. However, patents also have the potential to deter rather than encourage innovation, particularly when they claim rights to inventions at the upstream end of the research-development continuum[21]. Open source in biotechnology makes this monopoly brittle, thereby reducing the economic reward. Thus, an argument could be advanced that it would reduce long term innovation. But open source would be a facilitator of downstream non- economic rewards.

Another important role of Open Source is its ability to infiltrate through the patent thicket in the patent regime. A patent thicket is “a dense web of overlapping intellectual property rights that a company must hack its way through, in order to actually commercialize new technology.”[22] Thus, it can also be a retaliation against the ‘Tragedy of the Anti-commons’. Patents often are cited as examples of tragedy of the anti-commons because a patent owner has exclusive rights over the use of patented technology. If the creation of a certain product involves the use many technologies and components patented by different people or different companies, then it can be very difficult to negotiate effectively with all the patent holders at once, and the result may be that one has to pay so many license fees that it becomes too expensive to create the desired product. Thus, a product that is in great demand may be produced because costs associated with patents are too high.[23] Anti commons tragedy in biotechnology is triggered by high transaction costs associated with assembling a ‘tool kit’ composed of multiple proprietary elements. If the owner of one of these proprietary elements were to adopt an OSB strategy, then the overall transaction costs would, in principle, be proportionally lowered because anyone, anywhere would be sure of obtaining permission to use, modify and distribute the relevant technology element for any purpose without ongoing obligations to the owner.[24]

One can think of open source licensing as a form of grantback clause, because the licensee is required to make its own intellectual property available to others, including the licensor, while open source licenses commonly compel licensees to turn to grant access to their intellectual property to others, thus extending the reach of the license beyond the scope of the intellectual property grant, there are several reasons to doubt that these agreements raise anti trust concerns. First, few open source licensors have market power. Second, the extent of the required grant is limited to intellectual property actually incorporated in products that use the licensed technology, rather than extending to unrelated or potentially competitive technologies. Finally, the openness that is required is always non-exclusive, rather than an assignment or exclusive license back to the licensor. Indeed, the requirement of openness permits anyone to benefit from the licensed technology, not just the original licensor. For these reasons, it seems unlikely that an open source license will constitute patent or copyright misuse.[25]

Due to the ease of patenting biological discoveries, it is likely that anyone working in biomedical research will have to use several patented procedures in order to create a marketable product. However, since those patents are short-lived and only a few patents result in marketable product, those developing new treatments or processes often find that negotiating a licensing agreement with the patent holders is prohibitively expensive and will result in product being unmarketable. In fact, a patent holder can often say that mere research is in infringing use, and demand a license fee even though the chance of developing a marketable product is slim.[26]

Patent owners who are effectively free to dictate the terms of use of an established test may choose to license it broadly, asking only a reasonable royalty from all laboratories that offer the test to patients. On the other hand, they may choose to restrict license to selected laboratories or even to a single test provider. In the latter case, the consequence can be severe. Monopoly control over a particular test tends to limit accessibility and increase costs, with obvious negative implications for the equitable provision of cheap health services. Quality assurance is also compromised: with only a handful of test providers, regulators may find it not cost effective to develop adequate proficiency testing[27].

Any contributor to an OSB project may be motivated by the anticipation of[28]:

• Process Benefits

In the FLOSS context, process benefits include fun, learning and social interaction with like minded peers. Biotechnology industry participants do sometimes invest in research and development activity solely or primarily for the sake of analogous process benefits. At the corporate level, potential process benefits of participating in OSB development include organizational learning, developing and maintaining a wide range of inter-organizational linkages and establishing a corporate reputation as competent and trustworthy collaborator. All are commercially relevant in biotechnology and related industries, where the ability to engage in productive collaborations across firm boundaries is crucial to retaining a competitive edge.

• User Benefits

The primary rationale for choosing OSB approach is that it permits prospective users to share the cost and risk of developing a new technology and depending on the chosen license terms, potentially gain free access to valuable downstream technologies. Further, an OSB approach may enhance the usefulness of the technology by expanding the number of people who can help eliminate design flaws and introduce new features.

• Non-proprietary Business Opportunities

Mainstream or conventional biotechnology business strategies typically rely on property rights as a means of excluding non-paying users from accessing or commercializing the technology. By contrast, non-proprietary business strategies are designed to exploit the enhanced value to a firm’s clients or customers of technologies whose use, modification and redistribution are relatively unrestricted and which are therefore likely to be cheaper, more readily available and of better quality.

• Restructuring Competition

A crucial feature of open source is that it promotes free and open competition with respect to the technology in question. Although commercial players generally prefer to protect themselves from competition wherever possible, they always want to ensure competition among their suppliers.  Other ways, an OSB approach might be used to restructure the competitive landscape in an industry sector to contributor’s advantage including creating the opportunity for several smaller firms to combine resources against a larger competitor or attracting customers away from established technology provider.

Peer review may play a crucial role in enhancing biotechnology, and safety concerns might reinforce preferences for open approach rather than proprietary secrecy. Companies using biotechnology to deliver other services, such as health care, rather than just selling genetic products might well prefer open source suppliers. It would appear that open source approaches might be relevant for many aspects of biotechnology, although there would likely still be major areas where proprietary approaches would retain advantages.[29]

At a minimum, open source approaches might offer some useful options concerning the regulation of intellectual property rights related to genetic resources. The example of computer code shows how collective open source efforts can thrive, even while knowledge is produced and used within commercial activities. Similar principles might apply concerning genetic codes. Rather than a purely proprietary or purely public approach to intellectual property in genetic resources, a more differentiated approach might be feasible. Such an approach might facilitate collective action to discover and make available genetic knowledge in ways that would be difficult through purely public or private approaches. In at least some cases, proprietary rights may be neither necessary nor even the best way to promote innovation, while dumps into sources of valuable materials.[30]

Despite the fact that OSB promotes access to research tools and encourages user innovation, there are deep concerns over the fact that it would actually curb the private returns that would have ensued by licensing the innovation. However, open source fits very well within a collaboration-strengthening pyramid because one of the attractions of open source methods for opening up information exchange is that they involve minimal upfront investment on the part of technology developers.[31] The open source group, however, is not trying to restrict the amount of core plus improvement technology available, by ensuring that the improvements remain openly available. Such an effect would be better described as ultimately increasing rather than reducing the supply of the downstream product.[32]

Read More

Adoption – Legal and social perception

Parenthood is the greatest blessing in one’s life.  In olden days there was a belief that if one is not blessed with a ‘Puthra’  he is not free from the NARAKA named “PUM”. We see  the practices of performing ”’Puthrakameshti’ to have a biological child. Like parenthood the family is the dream of every child. We have several stories of adoption in our mythologies.  Sita or Janaki in Ramayana was an adopted child of King Janaka.  According the ancient belief, ‘Kanyadan’ is also to be performed by every parent to attain  heavenly bliss.

Due to many reasons beyond ones control,  there are couples who cannot have their own child. But if they have a will,  they can enjoy parenthood by adopting a child. The child gets a family life and the parents enjoy the heavenly bliss in such cases. There are several legally authorised  homes  in our country, which take care of children who are devoid of parents. To hold the hand of one such child and make him a member of the family, is a most beautiful feeling and a service. The sad part is that this is  not welcomed by many cultures and families.  Many people may agree to the idea of adopting a child. But there are a lot of people who are not having a biological child and desiring to have a child to be cared and protected, show reluctance to adoption due to the cultural barriers and some social stigma imposed upon them. 

Adopting A Child In India- its legal aspects.

Every countries have their own rules of adoption.  Rules for adoption is a way to make sure that the  child has a secured and bright future. Let us examine the very important rules and procedures existing in our land.

Who can adopt?

1. A couple who wants to give a child a loving family and healthy environment, can adopt.

2. One can adopt a child under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956 and under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 and amended in 2006.

3. Must have a reasonable and regular source of income to support the needs of the child within the family.

4. The couples should be free from  major illness that can come in the way of parenting.

5. Neither of the parents should have a criminal record.

6. The composite age of desirous adoptive couple shouldn’t exceed 90 years for infants.

7. Single parent can adopt up to 45 years of age.

8. The age difference between the parent and the adopted child should be at least 21 years.

9. If the parent is single, there should have additional family support.

Agencies For Adoption – In India CARA is the central agency to regulate adoption. They formulate the principles for adoption. Application – Prospective adoptive parent(s) should register themselves with the local RIPA / LAPA or Adoption coordinating Agency or with the State Adoption Cell The Adoption – A home study report of the prospective adoptive parents will be prepared by the social worker of the Agency. To allay the fears and apprehensions of the prospective adoptive parent(s), pre-adoptive counseling sessions will be undertaken by the social worker during the preparation of the home study report. Assessing the ability of a couple to parent a child not born to them is of crucial importance in a successful adoption. Therefore, their suitability to care for an unrelated child is assessed through this home study and counseling. Documents relating to the financial and health status of the prospective parent(s) will be part of the Home Study Report. The Agency will make a suitable reference from amongst the admitted children legally free for adoption. If no suitable child is available, the family will be referred to the ACA. After the Home Study has been accepted and approved, a child will be shown to the parent(s). The agency will take care to match a child meeting the description, if any, desired by the parent(s). In case of placement of older children (above the age of 6), both written and verbal consent of the child will be obtained.

Post Adoption

Many parents are found to be reluctant to inform the child that they are adopted. In many cases it is found that the practice have created problems in their future life. So it is better that the parents should convincingly inform the child about the adoption in the very early stage. Adopting a child is a service which is above any rules and regulations. Adoption give pride and protection to a child who till few moments back was an orphanage.  The adoption is a two way process – it gives happiness of child hood  and parenthood at the same time.

Read More

Right of the accused in an order passed u/s 156(3)cr.p.c.

Many times it becomes very confusing that either the revision by the accused person or persons in an order passed u/s 156(3)cr.p.c. is maintainable or not and also that the order passed by the magistrate in 156(3) cr.p.c. for filing FIR and investigation is interlocutory in nature or a final order . Not only the accused persons but we lawyers get confused .But if we go through the Full bench decision of Allahabad High Court(U.P.) in the criminal revision of Father Thomas v/s state of u.p.(cr.rev. no.1640 of 2001),the things becomes very clear . In this revision the full bench was constituted and which taken five other revisions of the same matter named Lal chand maurya v/s State of u.p. and others(1731/2001), Jas Ram Kuswaha v/s State of u.p. and another(1581/2001), Mohd. Tahir and others v/s state of u.p. and others(1727/2001), Swaroop and others v/s State of u.p. and others(1656/2001), Naresh and others v/s State of u.p. and others(1658/2001). The full bench taken three main points for the consideration and among of them, the two are very important.

A. Whether the order of the magistrate made in exercise of powers under section 156(3)cr.p.c. directing the police to register and investigate is open to revision when neither cognizance has been taken nor any process issued ?

B. Whether an order made u/s 156(3)cr.p.c.is an interlocutory order and remedy of revision against such order is barred under sub section(2) of section 397cr.p.c.

Findings come out on the issues-

a. Prospective accused has no locus standi to challenge a direction for investigation of a cognizable case under section 156(3)cr.p.c. before cognizance or issuance of process against the accused .

b. The order under 156(3)cr.p.c., the police to investigate is clearly an interlocutory order and a criminal revision is barred in view of sec.397(2) of the code .

The above discussion of the constituted full bench, makes it very clear that the accused have no right of the revision against the order passed by the magistrate to investigate the matter and also the order passed for investigation is interlocutory in nature and thus again revision is barred u/s397(2)cr.p.c.

One more important issue discussed in this revision and which was-

Whether the view of the division bench in Ajay Malviyas case(supra) that an order u/s 156(3)cr.p.c. was amenable to revision, no writ petition would lie for challenging an FIR lodged pursuant to the order u/s 156(3) cr.p.c. will be maintainable, is correct?

The bench find that the view expressed by a division bench of this court in case of Ajay Malviya v/s state of u.p. and others  in 2000(41)ACC435 is not correct.

Read More

Indianness of Constitution of India

The Constitution of India was framed by the Constituent Assembly that was absolutely Indian. An overwhelming majority of members of the body that enacted the most important document for governance of Bharat and observe Rule of Law comprised freedom fighters who had given their best to making India free. Their credentials were above reproach. Our Founding Fathers of the Constitution enjoyed the love, respect and admiration of people of India. People loved the members of the Constituent Assembly and got love in return in abundance.

FEATURES OF INDIANNESS

Language, culture, dress, education, Sanskars and above all the Mindset go to make the Indianness or otherwise of our Constitution. The vast majority of constitution makers came from villages of India. They were soaked in the soil, water and air of India. Regretfully they were not allowed to have their say in matters constitutional.

Leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel, Dr Rajendra Prasad, Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar and many legal luminaries of the Aiyyar and Iyengar Tambram intellectual clans dominated the   proceedings of the Constituent Assembly from A to Z. The semi-literate Ram and Ghanshyam, men of peasant stock who were in an overwhelming majority in the Assembly, followed no English, what to say of legal lingua franca in a foreign tongue. Their presence in the Hall was the only contribution that they could make. Thus the Constitution of India in its final shape did not have an imprint of the People of India, the rural India, the India of the Vedic culture or the Ganga-Jamuni composite culture, notwithstanding the fact that it was enacted, adopted by the People of India and promulgated by the People of India just two months after enactment and signing by one and all concerned with it.

The Constitution was a finished product in a book form on 26 November 1949. It was adopted on 26 January 1950 and then the same day the Republic of India came into being. Dr Rajendra Prasad who was President of the Constituent Assemby, was dy eected as the first President of the Republic of India.

One regrets to note that despite all factors being favourable to India and Indians, the Constitution of India lacked an Indian soul that was needed to make it effective at the ground roots level. Our Vedic heritage was touched with a barge poll but there was no deep penetration in Spiritualism. Borrowing from the West where a camour for separating the Christian Church from the State was heeded to and the State was a votary of Secularism At a later stage Secularism was incorporated in our Indian Constitution too but here it was interpreted by successive Congress governments as an Article for protection of the Muslim minority reducing them to the status of a vote-bank.

The Constitution of India failed the litmus test of being Indian in character. It was everything but a document for the People, by the People and of the People of India that is Bharat. The vast majority of peope lives in villages and yet the villages are as neglected today as they were under the foreign rule. The focus was on the cities and urban areas and that caused a migration from the rural areas to the urban areas creating a myriad problems.

What a pity that the members of that august body, the Constituent Assembly failed to give just one Indian name to the motherland. It is called India that is Bharat in our Constitution and other legal documents. India remained but Bharat receded into anonymity.

The founding fathers of the Constitution of India were in favour of adopting just one national anthem – Vande Mataram. What a shame the present national anthem jana gana mana came from behind riding the shoulders of Jawaharlal Nehru and usurped the throne. The whole country regrets that dacoity till this day. Nehru did so just to please a section of the Muslim minority, ignoring the numerically superior Hindus of Bharat, jettisoning VANDE MATARAM and superimposing a Tagore written song that the vast majority of Indians believes  was written as an eulogy for King George V when he visited the British India in 1911. We have to live with that disgrace forever, thanks to Nehru’s monumental folly.

Dr Rajendra Prasad, President of the Constituent Assembly and a down to earth scholar and legalluminary sensed the mood of the House and the Indian Nation and said that Vande Mataram will be the National Song of India and shall have the same stats as the trumped up national anthem. That solemn promise remained on paper only and the inspiring anthem of the struggle for independence days gradually faded into oblivion.

As a commentator on Akashvani and Doordarshan, now on the ZEE NEWS on the Independence Day ceremony at the Red Fort and the Republic Day Parade on the Raj path, I always miss the good old VANDE MATARAM that I had sung along with other students on many a march against the British imperialism on road to freedom. The British Police beat up boys of senior classes, threatened juniors like me with sending a letter of complaint to parents but we marched on relentlessly. When the seniors fell to the lathi blows, we juniors held the Tricolour and rented the sky with our patriotic chants and slogans- Vande Mataram, Vande Mataram. Even the British sergeants looked at us in awe, used abusive language but stopped short of beating boys of junior classes. Freedom came sans the song of freedom.

It was the devilish design and a shameful act of those who appeased the anti-national elements by banishing the national song from the State ceremonies just to retain political power in their hands. Who cares for the country? Who cares for the Constitution? Who cares for the people? Not the ruling elite of political bigwigs and some families who became Pretenders to the Throne.

FEATURES OF OUR CONSTITUTION

The Constitution of India is a written document and is relied solely on its text by the judiciary. Although the Hindi text is the authentic text of the Constitution of India, it is the English text that rules the roost and is relied upon by judges and advocates in many a legal battle fought in courts of law. Unlike the British constitution which is by and large convention and tradition based and is in a written form to a minor degree only, the Indian constitution gives a little leeway to judicial interpretation where written word is clear in its intent. Indeed the Supreme Court and the High Courts have the constitutional mandate for a Judicial Review and their interpretation is not only the Last Word in the matter but also lays down law of the land.

The Judiciary ensures that the country is governed by the provisions of law and that the Rule of Law is respected and obeyed always. The Indian   jurisprudence, that relies on the Anglo-Saxon and Roman jurisprudence, lays down:

HOWEVER HIGH YOU MAY EVER BE,

THE LAW IS ABOVE YOU.

The Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles are a part of the Constitution of India. It has 395 Articles and Nine Schedules. With the result, the Indian Constitution is a bulky book, difficult to carry and harder to understand in letter and spirit. It falls on the strong shoulders of the Indian Judiciary to interpret the Constitution of India for the benefit of the People of India.

The Artices, Schedues, Clauses and Sub-clauses are so complicated that even judicial brains are perplexed and confused many a time, what to say of Sepoy Bhup Singh of the Indian Army who rarely knocks at the door of a Temple of Justice, even if he is wronged and feels aggrieved. It is well nigh impossible for a common man to get Justice since it is so expensive that he cannot afford it in this life.

Nevertheless the Constitution of India is the sole authentic document the legal fraternity relies upon. The leaders of the opposition parties who are incarcerated by the party in power every now and then have no option but to knock at the door of the High Court of the State where the cause of action occurred or at the Supreme Court if a number of States are involved. More often than not the underdog gets grievances redressed and is released from prison forthwith unless detained in some other case of infringement of law of the land.

As a student of the University of Allahabad it was my privilege to watch the proceedings of a case of Habeas Corpus under article 226 of the Constitution of India when the Socialist leader of eminence, Dr Ram Manohar Lohia was detained by the government of Uttar Pradesh for no rhyme or reason. Under orders of the High Court of Allahabad, Dr Lohia was brought from the central prison and in parts he was permitted to argue his own case in addition to what his counsel had said. Dr Lohia had read out the views of eminent thinkers and philosophers from all over the world like Hobbes, Thoreau, Rousseau and Chanakya to plead that he had exercised his  right of freedom of thought, expression, unrestricted movement without endangering the life, limb, property or any other constitutional right of another Indian citizen. The government could not produce any reliable evidence to support its case of detention of the leader and the logical deduction was that the govt had exceeded its powers and put restriction on the constitutional rights of Dr Lohia. Their Lordships allowed the petition and set Dr Lohia free. Indeed it was a landmark judgement reiterating the constitutional rights of a citizen and the judiciary was applauded as a protector of the Constitution of India.

VEDIC VISION

TRUTH, EQUALITY, LIBERTY, FRATERNITY, NON-VIOLENCE LEADING TO AN EGALITARIAN SOCIETY ARE SOME OF THE PILLARS OF VEDIC VALUES OF LIFE ON WHICH THE VEDIC SAMAJ EXISTED AND RESTED.

I am glad to note that the present Constitution of India promulgated on 26 January 1950 has incorporated quite a few them. Some of them got diluted over a period of time when values of life were thrown overboard and self-seekers put self before the society. The apple cart of Vedic vision was over-turned and the same degeneration set in post independence as had set in post-Mahabharat period of history.The words in Sanskrit in the Devnagari script written under the State symbol are: satyamev jayate, it means that the TRUTH alone shall prevail. The Vedic philosophers like Shankaracharya, Manu Maharaj and Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati have laid an emphasis on the TRUTH as the foundation of an ideal human life. In the TEN Principles of the Arya Samaj, there is an emphasis on the Truth among five of them.

Some commentators are of the opinion that the State symbol should have carried the correct quote: Satyamev Jayate nanritam – THAT IS THE Truth alone shall prevail but NOT the UNTRUTH. Unfortunately, only the three lions form the State emblem and the Sanskrit words from the Mundak Upanishad got deleted over a period of time. But a revival of the quotation is in the offing.

It would be appropriate to mention that the four lions are taken from the Sarnath Buddhist edict pillar erected by Emperor Asoka but only three are seen in print. It was a penchant with Nehru to go for symbols of other religions like the present one but keep the principles of the Vedic Dharm at bay. Little did he realise that weakening the hold of the Hindus on State authority will weaken the majority community and that in turn will weaken India that is Bharat. Now the writing is on the wall for everyone to see.

CONSTITUTION A SOULLESS ENTITY

The constitution is quite an idealistic one as it promises Heaven but does not deliver even mundane minor goods. There have been numerous amendments as the Congress government was, generally speaking, bent upon to undo whatever the judiciary did to uphold the rights of the wronged citizens. In Indira Gandhi’s time of prime ministership, her government had even superseded three judges of the Supreme Court just because they exercised their right to deliver unbiased judgements and did not toe the line of the government like a subservient magistracy. The whole world had criticised this unholy act of the government of India and thereafter the govt did not repeat its folly.

Now the Judiciary is so assertive that they do not let the Executive (read government) come anywhere near the selection process of judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court. There is a Collegium of the Chief Justice of India, two senior most judges of the Supreme Court and Chief Justice of the High Court concerned where a judge is to be appointed. When the Collegium of Judges recommends names, the govt just issues the appointment  letter. The Executive is quite cut up on this assertive move of the Judiciary but as per the Constitution is powerless to act in the matter. The Judiciary is running the Executive show in many a matter because the govt is gripped with a paralysis of making policy decisions.

On making a critical assessment of the effectiveness of the Constitution, legal brains find that it is quite a hotch- potch. There is no fragrance of THE SOIL OF INDIA in the Constitution of India. To start with, the Constituent Assembly relied heavily on provisions of the Government of India Act 1935 that the then British govt had promulgated for a gradual transfer of power to the Indians. With the result certain constitutional posts were saddled with powers that should have devolved on the elected Executives. The State Governor even now recommends dismissal or continuation of an elected govt, including the Chief Minister, of a State.

Our Constitution had borrowed systems from other countries too although the circumstances, the people and the ground realities did not match. The Vedic values of life listed earlier were listed as the Guide but were thrown overboard when it came to working out the nitty-gritty of actual working of the system of governance. Undue importance was given to the rights of minorities and that fuelled anti-national activity among some elements who were inspired by their co-religionists from across the western borders. Thus the mixed provisions of constitution left the Indian intelligentsia a confused lot and the Founding Fathers got a bad name unnecessarily. The way to hell was paved with good intentions.

Here is a brief review of what we borrowed from where. The Parliamentary system of governance, the separation of powers between the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary with checks and balances to keep each other within bounds was a brilliant idea borrowed verbatim from the United Kingdom. The UK has a long tradition of People exercising Power since 1215 when King John was forced by the Barons to sign on the dotted line of Magna Carta. Thereafter, the parliamentary democracy evolved with maturity over many centuries. The British Parliament is likely to enact in 2011 The Right To Recall of the MPs if they have a serious brush with law. The voters wil exercise this right for the first time in UK. Anna Hazare, the Indian social activist is pressing for the same Right to Recall for the Indian voters too.

India had the inheritance of Vedic Ganarajya system and the sagacity to implement it but the then political leadership of Nehru’s ilk were so British oriented in their thinking that they abhorred their forefather’s legacy. The nation paid dearly for this fallacious thinking. Nehru took pride in being branded as the last Englishman to rule India on behalf of the British Crown.

The principles of the Fundamental Rights and the over-riding factor of Judicial Review to keep the autocratic Executive in check were borrowed lock stock and barrel from the Constitution of the United States of America.

The Directive Principles of the Constitution were borrowed from the Irish Republic but rarely implemented. The Directive Principle of Common Civil Code for all Indian citizens irrespective of their religion or faith was put in the cold storage lest the Congress party lost Muslim votes as they were   opposed to the very idea of a Common Civil Code. Fortunately the then British government had implemented the Common Criminal Procedure and criminal Law otherwise the spineless Congress govt would have conceded to the Muslims their right of governance under the Sharia Law.

Under the influence of the Communists, the Congress government had amended the Constitution to add the Fundamental Duties on the pattern of the Constitution  of Russian Federation.

The Supreme Court of India has come to the rescue of the hapless Indian citizen and Ruled once and for all that no amendment can be brought by the govt that may alter the basic character of the Constitution. Their lordships of the large Constitution Bench also said that in case it was deemed necessary by the government to alter the basic character of the Constitution, a new Constituent Assembly should be elected and mandated to alter the basic character.

Read More

Exemption from filing Original Documents in Suits: Delhi High Court

Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw in a recent unreported Judgment has dealt with the power of the Court with relation to permitting a party to a civil suit to file only photocopy of the document and exempt such party from placing the original document on the file of the court and merely to give inspection thereof to the opposite party at the time of admission/denial of documents and at the time of tendering the document into evidence and to put the Exhibit mark again on photocopy on the file of the court.

While discussing the advancement of science and technology, the Court held;

7. At the outset, I must state that, to hold that there is no power whatsoever in the court to exempt placing of the original document on the file of the court on the condition of the party offering the same for inspection in the court as and when required, is not found by me to be in consonance with the principles of convenience and expediency and with the times. The courts, increase in number whereof has not kept pace with the increase in population and development of trade and commerce which also leads to increase in litigation, are today over loaded and facing a crunch not only of manpower but also of shere physical space and infrastructure. The court buildings/premises/infrastructure which were built and designed for a certain volume of litigation, are falling far short of the number of legal cases transacted therein. The persons handling the court files and/or the papers filed in the court work under tremendous time constraints and pressure and cannot be expected to take care or safety and preservation of the papers in the court file, as one would of his own. The papers filed, for being retained on the court file are punched not once or twice but several times. Often the papers are found to come loose from the court file and/or on repeated handling with torn corners. The documents which may be required to be filed in a lis may not merely be magazines or invoices as in this case but may be title documents to the immovable properties of the parties or of financial investments of the parties or as to educational qualifications/experience of parties and which may be irreplaceable qua the parties and loss/damages whereto may depreciate the value of the property/financial investments of the parties. The question posed above has to be adjudicated keeping all the said factors in mind and not merely the documents in the present case.

8. The courts today have undertaken an e-project, the vision whereof is a paper less court. Of course, the same is still a far cry. However, that being the vision, the law must evolve in consonance therewith and not to create impediments/obstacles in the same. In many countries, the filing of lis/claims in the court is through electronic media only without the advocate or the litigant physically visiting the court or filing a single paper therein. All this is not possible if insistence is made on filing of the original documents. It is possible today to scan the document and e-file it with the court and to simultaneously serve it on the opposing parties.

9. I am, therefore, of the view that if the provisions of the codified law so permit, it would be expedient to, where the court finds that the original document is such, the loss or damage whereto could cause irreparable loss or inconvenience to a litigant, to allow such original to remain in the safety of its owner/possessor and to allow filing of photocopy thereof only, with a condition on the party to produce the original for inspection as and when required.

10. Yet another reason which prevailed on me for even before considering the provisions of law find the aforesaid to be more reasonable, was the advancement in science and technology which today allows the photocopy of the original to be as good/clear as the original, if not clearer. A number of times, it is difficult to distinguish between the original and the photocopy. Gone are the times when copies of the original were made manually either in hand or in type with inherent possibility of differences between the two. In those times, seeing the copy could not be the same as seeing the original. One could not have the impact of seeing the original by seeing such a copy. However, the process of photocopying has changed all that. The ocular inspection of a photocopy of a document is as good as of the original. The laws which were drafted in those times have to be interpreted in consonance with the present times and technology.

While discussing the relevant provisions of law, the Court observed that;

20. The next questions which arise are, as to whether under Order 13 Rule 1 of the CPC the original document has to be placed on the file of the court or to be merely given inspection of for admission/denial of documents; whether the Evidence Act while providing for proof of documents by primary evidence requires filing/placing of the original document on the record of the court.

21. There can be no manner of doubt that the Evidence Act providing in Section 64 thereof of proof of documents by primary evidence only means proof of the original document. Even though Section 62 defining the primary evidence as meaning the document itself, does not state original document but since Section 63 while defining secondary evidence includes “copies from the original” and “copies made from and compared with the original” it necessarily follows that only the original is primary evidence.

22. However, most importantly, Section 62 is as under:

62. Primary Evidence – Primary evidence means the document itself produced for the inspection of the court.

Thus even at the stage of proof, the requirement is only for production of the original for inspection of the court and not of filing of the original in the court. It cannot be argued that production for inspection of the court has to be necessarily by placing it on the file of the court. It can also be by producing it as and when directed by the court for inspection thereof.

23. When at the stage of proof of documents, the requirement under Section 62 of the Evidence Act is only of production of original for inspection of the court, Order 13 Rule 1 of the CPC requiring production of originals has to be necessarily meant as production of original for inspection of the court and not as filing of the original. Significantly, Order 13 Rule 1 also uses both expressions “produce” in connection with original and “filed” in connection with the copies. The different expression used, together with definition/meaning of produce cited by Counsel for plaintiffs also lend me to hold that the original documents are only intended to be produced i.e. to be given inspection of while the copies are to be filed.

24. I, therefore, find that the scheme of the aforesaid legislative provisions also permits production of originals for inspection only and filing of copies only.

25. However, Order 13 Rule 4 CPC and the practise directions in the trial of suits issued by this court, also provide for making of endorsement on documents admitted in evidence. The document which is admitted in evidence is the primary document i.e. the original. Is the endorsement of exhibit mark to be made on original only which would again mean placing it on court record? In my view No. These provisions are procedural. When the substantive law permits only production for inspection of original, once that has been done, the endorsement/exhibit mark can be put on copy on court record also.

26. The aforesaid should not be understood as laying down that in all cases the filing of photocopies is enough. If the document is doubtful or for any other reason required by the court to remain in original on the file of the court, the court can always direct so and a party cannot insist on filing of copy only. There may be other instances where filing of the original is necessary, as in the case of documents like Will, Agreements which may be terminated/cancelled by destruction. The courts can in such cases insist upon the original being filed on the record.

27. I, therefore, answer the question posed by me in opening paragraph in the affirmative and in law there is no impediment to granting the application.

28. The next question is whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case the application should be granted. Though the arguments of the Counsel for the defendant of it being possible to file magazines/article in original in as much as several copies of the same can be available is attractive but impractical. In the normal course, a litigant may not retain a large number of copies of the magazines/articles and may retain a single or a few copies only for future use. It is very difficult for a litigant to long after the date of publication approach the publisher for other copies of the newspapers, magazines and articles. The same is the position of the invoices. The various laws i.e. the Income Tax Laws and the Companies Act provide for the duration for which the records are to be preserved. The parties may beyond the said terms retain a few/sample records for further use. It thus cannot be said that same invoices can be filed in each court.

Read More

Can the Bank adopt unfair/illegal methods to recover its due?

Recovery of its due has been a hectic exercise for the Banks in the absence of a special legislation. ‘Non-performing Assets’ were growing and a need was felt to reduce the ‘Non-performing Assets’ of the Banks drastically. As the recovery through Courts was a difficult exercise for the Banks, initially, a special legislation called ‘The Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993’ was enacted creating a Special Tribunal called ‘Debt Recovery Tribunal’. Under the Act, the Banks are entitled to approach the Tribunal by filing an ‘Original Application’ which is similar to filing a suit in Civil Court proceedings. However, unlike the ‘Civil Court’ which is supposed to follow the ‘Civil Procedure Code’, a special and simple procedure has been prescribed under ‘The Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993’. At the end of adjudication, the Tribunal is supposed to grant a certificate called ‘Recovery Certificate’ infavour of the Bank crystallizing the amount to be recovered from the borrower and it is like a ‘Decree’ granted by a Civil Court. There was a mechanism attached to the Debt Recovery Tribunal to conduct execution proceedings pursuant to the grant of ‘Recovery Certificate’. Thus, with ‘Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993’, the Banks were enabled to recover their dues speedily through the proceedings before the Special Tribunal called ‘Debt Recovery Tribunal’.

However, the object of reducing ‘Non-performing Assets’ could not be achieved even after enacting ‘Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993’ and as a result, another legislation on the similar field was enacted and it is ‘The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Called ‘SARFAESI Act’ in short)’. Under SARFAESI Act, 2002, the Bank can determine the outstanding due after noting the objections from the borrower/guarantor if any and can proceed against the ‘secured asset’ by taking physical possession of the same and initiating auction proceedings in accordance with the provisions and the SARFAESI rules. Under SARFAESI Act, the Bank need not approach the Courts for getting the due crystallized as it will do everything on its own and the only occasion for the Bank to approach Court is under Section 14 of the Act seeking police assistance etc. while taking physical possession of the ‘Secured Asset’. The borrower or any person aggrieved is provided with a right to question the action of the Bank under SARFAESI Act, 2002 by filing an appeal to the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act. On different provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002, the Courts have passed some land-mark judgments making good balance between the object of SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the interests of the borrower.

Few brief points, pursuant to the judgments of Constitutional Courts on SARFAESI Act, 2002, are as follows:

1. While upholding the constitutional validity of ‘SARFAESI Act, 2002’, Courts have made it very clear that the Bank is supposed to apply its mind to the objections raised by the Bank and the reply to the Borrower has been made as ‘mandatory’ and subsequent to the intervention of direction from the Court, section 13 (3A) was inserted.

Criticism: While appreciating the concern of the Courts in the interests of the borrowers, many also continuously criticize as to how the Banks follow the directions or implement the provisions. There are critics arguing that the it is very difficult to know as to whether the Bank has applied its mind or not while replying the objections raised by the borrower under section 13 (3). There is also a criticism that the reply from the Bank may not have any value, though the object is good theoretically. Because, the reply from the Bank to the borrower, will not enable the borrower to question the same in any Court unless the Bank issues a notice to the borrower under Section 13 (4) which is normally referred as ‘Possession Notice’.

2. The Courts have made it very clear that the borrower can raise all his objections before the Debt Recovery Tribunal in an appeal under section 17 of the Act. The scope of enquiry has literally been expanded by the Courts and the ‘Debt Recovery Tribunal’ can not confine its enquiry only to the procedural issue as to whether the Bank is right in following the procedure. Consequent to the expansion of scope of enquiry, the scope of powers of ‘Debt Recovery Tribunal’ were also expanded to some extent.

3. Courts have come very heavily, from time to time, on procedural irregularities committed by the Bank as each provision was backed with certain object. This is very laudable.

4. Initially, it is understood that the Borrower can only question the possession notice issued by the Bank under Section 13 (4) of the Act. However, the Courts have consistently held that all measures taken by the Bank under Section 13 (4) of the Act are appeallable before the Tribunal. This is very important issue and Bank is in no way gets prejudiced if the borrower is given a right to question all measures taken by the Bank. In the absence of such a provision pursuant to Court’s intervention, the borrower is left with no remedy when his property worth 1 crore is sold for a meager sum of 10 lakhs by the Bank. In no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the Bank always acts fairly as it is a Public Sector Undertaking and which may not have any motives.

The most important thing to be discussed is as to whether the Bank can act unfairly or illegally in the course its recovery of money. It may be true in some cases where the borrower tries to trouble the Bank in getting or recovering the outstanding due. No action of the borrower can trouble the Bank if it holds a right over ‘Secured Asset’ and if there is ‘Secured Asset’. Banks are provided with a special legislative set-up, though drastic, to recover its dues. Banks can not complain at the special legislation enabling it to recover its due and the borrower keep complaining at this special legislation and they keep calling it as ‘draconian’.

With this back-ground, the Banks are not entitled to act unfairly or illegally in the course of recovery of money. The delay tactics, at times, adopted by the borrower is no excuse for the Banks as to why it has not acted fairly as every Public Sector Bank is supposed to act fairly and strictly in accordance with law.

I would like to give an example as to how the Banks too can trouble the borrowers using the stringent provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 and it is as follows:

Facts:

A borrower avails various loan facilities including an agricultural loan from a Bank and the various loan facilities are extended to many family members. Only one member of the family oversees all these credit facilities from the Bank. It was a ‘secured loan’. The sole member/borrower who has maintained all the loan accounts from the Bank has expired and other family members are not aware of the loan facilities granted by the Bank fully. However, the family members came to know about the existence of loans with the Bank. The Bank has also sent demand notices under section 13 (2) while main borrower was alive. The family has also realized that the ‘secured asset’ was already transferred or sold without any knowledge to the Bank. The family members have conveyed all facts to the Bank and wanted to settle all ‘loan accounts’ and they have requested the Bank for a ‘One-Time Settlement’. The Bank has agreed for a ‘One-Time Settlement’ and receives the full amount under OTS. After the receipt of money from the borrowers, the Bank sends a communication to the borrowers saying that the ‘OTS acceptance’ is cancelled as the OTS was not in accordance with the regulations.

After canceling the OTS, the Bank issues notices under section 13 (4) of the Act clubbing all loan facilities, however, splitting all loan facilities, into two sets.

The family members of the borrowers are literally shocked. Now, the Bank proceeds under section 13 (4) without referring anything as to what has happened in-between and balance outstanding is claimed under section 13 (4).

Analysis:

1. Bank is supposed to take every-care while accepting the OTS and it can not cancel the OTS after receipt of substantial money from the borrower. Its an unfair practice unless the facts are such that the OTS cancellation is justified.

2. Bank will be clubbing all loan facilities, but issue notices as it likes. Sometimes, there can be one notice and there can be separate notices also despite the fact that the ‘Secured Asset’ is one and the same. When it issues ‘separate notices’, the borrower will be finding it extremely difficult while approaching the Courts or the Tribunal and they may be asking the borrower to file different Appeals or Cases though the entire transaction is same in substance.

3. The object of giving demand notice and seeking objections from the borrower is in line with the principles of natural justice and fair play. If much water is flown in between the notice under section 13 (2) and section 13 (4), the Bank is supposed to start the proceedings again under section 13 (2) and so that the borrower can raise his objections. But, this remains a complicated issue again.

4. The Borrower is entitled to ask for a ‘Specific Performance’ of OTS terms, however, it can be done in Civil Courts. DRT can say that it is not concerned with the OTS issues and even the High Court may ask the borrower to approach the Tribunal under section 17.

Like-wise, the borrower may also be facing lot of difficulties if the Bank misuses the provisions of the SARFAESI Act or intends to trouble the borrower. Irrespective of the object of SARFAESI Act, there is no justification whatsoever for the Banks or Public Sector Banks to act unfairly or act in a manner which is prejudicial to the borrower.

Read More