Court again seeks seizure law change

 This is the third time that the bench of Chief Justice VN Khare has pointed out that without a provision for court intervention, the law appeared to lack fairness.

 The Bench was particularly critical of Section 17 of the Act, which provided for the deposit of 75 per cent of the disputed amount before the Debt Recovery Tribunal could be moved.

 The Bench said Sections 13, 17 and 18 of the Act had to be recast and it was better for the government to do so as the court could not execute legislative functions. Also, as the provisions were interconnected, they could not be separated for legal examination, the court added.

 Sorabjee said he would come back on December 19 with an improved version of the provisions. He said there could be various ways to cure the defects in the Act. The court could do it through interpretation of the law and dilution of the harsh provisions. Or, the government could issue an ordinance so that the rules under the Act could be lightened.

 At the prolonged hearing today, senior counsel Kapil Sibal assailed the law as