INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK VS M/S RCM INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK VS M/S RCM INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. Case 

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले


REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4750 OF 2021
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK                ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
M/S RCM INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.
AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. This   appeal   challenges   the   judgment   dated   26th
March 2021 passed by the National Company Law Appellate
Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to
as “the NCLAT”) in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 736
of 2020, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present
appellant­Indian   Overseas   Bank,   which   was   in   turn   filed
challenging the order dated 15th  July 2020 passed by the
National   Company   Law   Tribunal,   Hyderabad   Bench­1,
Hyderabad   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   “the   NCLT”)   in   I.A.
1
No.832 of 2019 in  C.P. (IB) No. 601/10/HDB/2018, vide
which the learned NCLT had allowed the application filed by
the respondent No.2 herein, former Managing Director of the
respondent   No.1   herein­M/s   RCM   Infrastructure   Ltd.
(hereinafter referred to as the "Corporate Debtor”) and set
aside the sale of the assets of the Corporate Debtor.
2. The facts in brief, giving rise to filing of the present
appeal, are as under:
The   appellant   Bank   had   extended   certain   credit
facilities to the Corporate Debtor.   However, the Corporate
Debtor failed to repay the dues and the loan account of the
Corporate Debtor became irregular.  As such, on 13th June
2016, the loan account of the Corporate Debtor came to be
classified as “Non­Performing Asset” (NPA).
3. The appellant Bank issued a Demand Notice under
Section   13(2)   of   the   Securitisation   and   Reconstruction   of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002 (hereinafter referred to as the “SARFAESI Act”), calling
upon the Corporate Debtor and its guarantors to repay the
outstanding amount due to the appellant Bank.   Since the
2
Corporate Debtor failed to comply with the Demand Notice
and repay the outstanding dues, the appellant Bank took
symbolic   possession   of   two   secured   assets   mortgaged
exclusively with it.   The same was done by the appellant
Bank in exercise of powers conferred on it under Section
13(4) of the SARFAESI Act read with Rule 8 of the Security
Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as
the “said Rules”).   One of the said properties stood in the
name of Corporate Debtor and the other in the name of
Corporate Guarantor.  An E­auction notice came to be issued
on 27th September 2018 by the appellant Bank to recover the
public money availed by the Corporate Debtor.
4. In   the   meantime,   on   22nd  October   2018,   the
Corporate   Debtor   filed   a   petition   being   CP(IB)   No.
601/10/HDB/2018 under Section 10 of the Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “the IBC”)
before the learned NCLT.  In the first E­auction held on 6th
November 2018, no bids were received.  As such, the second
E­auction notice came to be issued on 27th November 2018,
which was scheduled to be held on 12th December 2018.  In
3
the   second   E­auction,   three   persons   became   successful
bidders by offering jointly a price of Rs.32.92 crore for both
the secured assets.   On 13th  December 2018, the sale was
confirmed   in   favour   of   the   successful   bidders/auction
purchasers in the public auction.   The successful bidders
deposited   25%   of   the   bid   amount,   i.e.,   Rs.8.23   crore
including the Earnest Money Deposit of the said amount and
the appellant Bank issued a sale certificate to them.   The
auction purchasers were directed to pay the balance 75% of
the bid amount within 15 days, i.e., prior to 28th December
2018.
5. It   appears   that   the   auction   purchasers,   on   28th
December 2018, addressed a letter to the appellant Bank
seeking handing over of peaceful and vacant possession of
the secured assets and also prayed for extension of time to
pay the balance 75% of the bid amount till 8th March 2019.
The request made by the auction purchasers was accepted
by the appellant Bank on 29th December 2018.  It is the case
of the appellant Bank that in exercise of its powers under
Rule 9(4)(a) of the said Rules, it extended the period till 8th
4
March   2019   for   payment   of   the   balance   75%   of   the   bid
amount.
6. The   learned   NCLT,   vide   order   dated   3rd  January
2019, admitted the petition filed by the ex­promoter of the
Corporate Debtor.  As a result of the said order passed under
Section 10 of the IBC, the Corporate Insolvency Resolution
Process   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   “the   CIRP”)   of   the
Corporate Debtor commenced.   A moratorium as provided
under Section 14 of the IBC was notified and an Interim
Resolution Professional (hereinafter referred to as “the IRP”)
was also appointed.
7. The appellant Bank on 21st  January 2019, filed its
claim in Claim Form­C with the IRP, upon it coming to know
about the admission of the insolvency petition filed by the
Corporate Debtor.   According to the appellant Bank, since
the balance 75% of the bid amount was not yet received on
the said date, it was not excluded from the claim filed before
the IRP.   During the pendency of the CIRP, the appellant
Bank   accepted   the   balance   75%   of   the   bid   amount,   i.e.,
Rs.24.69   crore   on   8th  March   2019.     Upon   receipt   of   the
5
payment, the appellant Bank submitted its revised claim in
Claim Form­C to the IRP on 11th March 2019.  The appellant
Bank also intimated the IRP about the successful sale of the
said secured assets.  The promoter of the Corporate Debtor,
i.e., respondent No.2 herein, thereafter filed an application
being   I.A.   No.832/2020   in   the   pending   company   petition
being   CP(IB)   No.   601/10/HDB/2018,   thereby   praying   the
learned NCLT to set aside the security realization during the
CIRP period carried out by the appellant Bank or in the
alternative to cancel the impugned transaction.   Vide order
dated 15th  July 2020, the learned NCLT passed an order
thereby allowing the said application filed by the respondent
No.2 and setting aside the sale of the property owned by the
Corporate Debtor.   Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant
Bank filed an appeal being Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency)
No. 736 of 2020 before the learned NCLAT and the same was
rejected by the impugned judgment dated 26th March 2021.
Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal.
8. We have heard Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor
General appearing on behalf of the appellant Bank, Shri C.S.
6
Vidyanathan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
the impleading applicants, i.e., the auction purchasers, Shri
K.V.   Viswanathan,   learned   Senior   Counsel   appearing   on
behalf   of   the   respondent   No.1   and   Shri   Aditya   Verma,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2.
9. Shri Tushar Mehta submitted that the very initiation
of the voluntary insolvency proceedings under Section 10 of
the IBC, by the ex­promoter of the Corporate Debtor, was
with mala fide intent and as such, hit by Section 65 of the
IBC.  It is submitted that the loan account of the Corporate
Debtor was classified as “NPA” on 13th June 2016.  Thereafter
on 18th  April 2018, the appellant Bank issued a Demand
Notice   under   Section   13(2)   of   the   SARFAESI   Act.     He
submitted that since the Corporate Debtor failed to make the
payment, a symbolic possession came to be undertaken by
the appellant Bank under Section 10 of the SARFAESI Act
and an E­auction notice was issued on 26th September 2018.
He submitted that the said notice was challenged by the
Corporate   Debtor   by   filing   an   application   being   SA   No.
340/2018   before   the   learned   Debt   Recovery   Tribunal­II,
7
Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as “the DRT”).  However,
no stay was granted by the DRT in the said application.  It is
submitted that on the contrary, an order came to be passed
on   29th  October   2018   by   the   learned   DRT,   whereby
confirmation of sale was stayed, subject to deposit of Rs.12
crore by the Corporate Debtor.  The Corporate Debtor failed
to do so.  After that, with mala fide intent, instead of making
payment, a petition came to be filed under Section 10 of the
IBC by the Corporate Debtor for the sole purpose of stalling
the sale.   He further submitted that the second E­auction
notice was issued on 27th November 2018, which resulted in
sale of the two properties.
10. Shri Mehta submitted that the order of the learned
NCLT, admitting the petition under Section 10 of the IBC,
came to be passed only on 3rd  January 2019, i.e., prior to
confirmation of sale.  He submitted that it is thus clear that
the   CIRP   was   initiated   only   to   stall   the   SARFAESI
proceedings.     It   is   submitted   that   though   the   issue   with
regard to Section 65 of the IBC was subsequently raised by
the appellant Bank, neither the learned NCLT nor the learned
8
NCLAT had considered the same.   It is submitted that the
mala fide intention of the IRP is clear inasmuch as since the
ex­promoters could not submit a credible plan, the learned
NCLT, vide order dated 7th  February 2022, has ordered for
liquidation.  It is submitted that a perusal of the said order
dated 7th  February 2022 would reveal that the delay was
caused at the instance of the IRP, who has been seen to be
helping the ex­promoters.
11. Shri   Mehta   further   submitted   that   since   the
moratorium   under   Section   14   of   the   IBC   has   ceased   to
subsist   after   the   order   directing   liquidation   was   passed
under   Section   52   of   the   IBC,   the   secured   creditors   were
allowed   to   realise   their   security   interest.     It   is   therefore
submitted that now, there is no bar on the appellant Bank to
realise its money.
12. Shri Mehta submitted that in view of the provision of
Section   54   of   the   IBC,   the   sale   was   complete   after   the
appellant Bank had received 25% of the bid amount and the
said was confirmed. He submitted that merely because a part
of the sale consideration was received subsequently, it could
9
not affect the sale.  A reference in this respect is placed on
the judgments of this Court in the cases of Vidhyadhar v.
Manikrao   and   Another1
,  B.   Arvind   Kumar   v.   Govt.   of
India  and  Others2
  and  Kaliaperumal   v.  Rajagopal  and
Another3
.
13. It is lastly submitted by Shri Mehta that Section
14(1)(c) of the IBC interdicts any action to foreclose, recover
or enforce any security interest including any action under
SARFAESI.   However, it does not undo actions which have
already stood completed.
14. Shri   Vaidyanathan,   learned   Senior   Counsel   also
supported the submissions of the learned Solicitor General
made on behalf of the appellant Bank.   It is submitted that
the promoters of the Corporate Debtor have indulged into
forum shopping with the malicious intent and as such, the
learned NCLT ought not to have granted relief in their favour.
It is submitted that the applicants were bona fide purchasers
and   put   into   possession   and   therefore   should   not   be
1 (1999) 3 SCC 573
2 (2007) 5 SCC 745
3 (2009) 4 SCC 193
10
disturbed.  It is submitted that the Corporate Debtor’s right
in   respect   of   the   mortgaged   property   is   the   right   of
redemption under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act,
1882 (hereinafter referred to as “the TP Act”).  It is submitted
that under Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, as amended in
2016, the right of redemption is lost on issuance of public
notice of auction or tender.
15. Shri Vaidyanathan further submitted that the mala
fide intention of the Corporate Debtor and the IRP are glaring
inasmuch   as   the   applicants   were   successful   auction
purchasers and they were not added as party respondents in
the   proceedings   before   the   learned   NCLT.     Relying   on
paragraph   (21)   of   the   Insolvency   Law   Committee   Report,
2018,   Shri   Vaidyanathan   submitted   that   the   rights   and
priorities of creditors established prior to insolvency under
commercial laws should be upheld to preserve the legitimate
expectations of creditors and encourage greater predictability
in commercial relationship.
16. Shri   Viswanathan,   learned   Senior   Counsel   has
supported the impugned judgment passed by the learned
11
NCLAT as well as the order passed by the learned NCLT.  He
submitted   that   the   title   of   the   secured   assets   cannot   be
conveyed   to   the   auction   purchasers   merely   upon
confirmation   of   sale   even   before   receiving   full   sale
consideration.  He submitted that the title would be passed
over only after receipt of the full consideration and issuance
of sale certificate.   The learned Senior Counsel submitted
that such contentions are totally contrary in view of various
provisions of the SARFAESI Act, the said Rules as well as
Sections 14(1)(c), 31(1) and 238 of the IBC.   He submitted
that only after the transfer takes place under Rules 8 and 9
of   the   said   Rules,   the   title   would   be   passed   over   to   the
auction purchasers.  He relies on the judgment of this Court
in the case of Hindon Forge Private Limited and Another
v.  State  of  Uttar  Pradesh  through  District  Magistrate,
Ghaziabad and Another4
.
17. Shri   Viswanathan   further   submitted   that   Section
13(8)   of   the   SARFAESI   Act   itself   provides   a   right   of
redemption of secured assets to the owner/debtor.  He relies
4 (2019) 2 SCC 198
12
on the judgment of this Court in the case of S. Karthik and
Others v. N. Subhash Chand Jain and Others5
in support
of this proposition.
18. Shri Viswanathan submitted that upon approval of
the Resolution Plan (hereinafter referred to as “the RP”), in
view of Section 31(1) of the IBC, all the debts stand legally
resolved and the same is binding on all parties including the
Corporate   Debtor,   its   employees,   members,   creditors,   all
Govt. dues and the successful resolution applicant would be
entitled to start on a clean slate.  The learned Senior Counsel
submitted   that   the   Jural   relationship   of   Creditor­Debtor
would   get   altered/severed   under   a   new   contract   upon
approval of a new RP.  It is submitted that as a consequence,
the   security   created   under   the   old   contract   would   stand
released by operation of law and the relationship would be
governed by the terms of the approved plan and the mortgage
created   under   the   old   contract   would   get
extinguished/novated.   It is submitted that in any case, in
view  of   Section  238  of  the  IBC,  the  provisions  contained
5 2020 SCC OnLine SC 787
13
therein will override all other laws for the time being in force
and the provisions of the IBC would also prevail over any
other instrument having effect by virtue of any other law.   A
reliance in this respect is placed on the judgment of this
Court   in   the   case   of  Anand   Rao   Korada,   Resolution
Professional   v.   Varsha   Fabrics   Private   Limited   and
Others6
.
19. Shri   Viswanathan   further   submitted   that   the
continuation   of   any   proceeding   including   the   proceeding
under the SARFAESI Act is totally illegal in view of Section
14(1)(c)   of   the   IBC.     It   is,   therefore,   submitted   that   the
continuation of any action under the SARFAESI Act by the
appellant   Bank   and   the   receipt   of   the   balance   sale
consideration was violative of Section 14(1)(c) of the IBC.  He
submitted that the amount payable by the Corporate Debtor
to   the   other   Financial   Creditors   is   much   more   than   the
amount received by the appellant Bank during the pendency
of the CIRP.  He submitted that under the provisions of the
IBC, all the Financial Creditors would be entitled to a share
6 (2020) 14 SCC 198
14
in the amount received upon realization of the assets of the
Corporate Debtor and the appellant Bank cannot keep it in
entirety. 
20. Shri   Viswanathan   submitted   that   the   allegations
with regard to mala fide are made only in order to prejudice
the Court.   It is submitted that in the petition filed under
Section   10   of   the   IBC,   the   Corporate   Debtor   has   clearly
mentioned about declaration of NPA by both the appellant
Bank and Andhra Bank and also initiation of auction process
by both the Banks.  He submitted that in any case, initiation
of the proceedings under the IBC for overall resolution of
debts of the Corporate Debtor cannot be labelled as a mala
fide  attempt.   He   submitted   that   Section   65   of   the   IBC
expressly provides for the mechanism and the remedy for
addressing frivolous or malicious proceedings initiated under
the SARFAESI Act.  However, the appellant Bank has chosen
not   to  take  recourse  to  such  proceedings.     As  such,   the
allegations of mala fide cannot be heard.
21. Shri   Verma,   learned   counsel   also   supported   the
impugned judgment passed by the learned NCLAT as well as
15
the order passed by the learned NCLT and the submissions
made by Shri Viswanathan. It is submitted that the appellant
Bank has never challenged the order dated 3rd January 2019,
vide   which   the   learned   NCLT   commenced   the   CIRP.     He
submitted that though the order of liquidation was passed by
the learned NCLT on 7th February 2022, the same has been
stayed by the learned NCLAT on 8th March 2022.
22. It   is   further   submitted   by   Shri   Verma   that   as   a
matter of fact, after the CIRP was initiated, the appellant
Bank itself has submitted its claim in Claim Form­C on 21st
January   2019   for   an   amount   of   Rs.79.94   crore,   which
included   the   full   value   of   the   assets.     It   is,   therefore,
submitted that the appellant is estopped from contending
that the amount of Rs.8.23 crore cannot be included in the
amount available for CIRP.
23. For   appreciating   the   rival   submissions,   it   will   be
apposite to refer to Section 14(1)(c) of the IBC:
“14. Moratorium.—(1) ……
(a) ……;
(b) …….;
16
(c)   any   action   to   foreclose,   recover   or   enforce   any
security   interest   created   by   the   corporate   debtor   in
respect of its property including any action under the
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets
and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (54 of
2002);
……….”
24. It is thus clear that after the CIRP is initiated, there
is moratorium for any action to foreclose, recover or enforce
any   security   interest   created   by   the   Corporate   Debtor   in
respect   of   its   property   including   any   action   under   the
SARFAESI Act.  It is clear that once the CIRP is commenced,
there   is   complete   prohibition   for   any   action   to   foreclose,
recover   or   enforce   any   security   interest   created   by   the
Corporate   Debtor   in   respect   of   its   property.     The   words
“including   any   action   under   the   SARFAESI   Act”   are
significant.  The legislative intent is clear that after the CIRP
is   initiated,   all   actions   including   any   action   under   the
SARFAESI Act to foreclose, recover or enforce any security
interest are prohibited.
25. It will also be relevant to refer to Section 238 of the
IBC:
17
“238.  Provisions  of  this  Code  to  override  other
laws.—The provisions of this Code shall have effect,
notwithstanding   anything   inconsistent   therewith
contained in any other law for the time being in
force or any instrument having effect by virtue of
any such law.”
26. It could thus be seen that the provisions of the IBC
shall   have   effect,   notwithstanding   anything   inconsistent
therewith contained in any other law for the time being in
force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such
law.
27. It has been consistently held by this Court that the
IBC is a complete Code in itself and in view of the provisions
of Section 238 of the IBC, the provisions of the IBC would
prevail   notwithstanding   anything   inconsistent   therewith
contained in any other law for the time being in force.   A
reference in this respect could be placed on the judgments of
this Court in the cases of Innoventive Industries Limited v.
ICICI   Bank   and   Another7
,  Principal   Commissioner   of
Income   Tax   v.   Monnet   Ispat   and   Energy   Limited8 and
7 (2018) 1 SCC 407
8 (2018) 18 SCC 786
18
Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited through
the   Authorised   Signatory   v.   Edelweiss   Asset
Reconstruction   Company   Limited   through   the   Director
and Others9
.
28. It is the contention of the appellant Bank that the
sale in question was complete on its confirmation on 13th
December 2018 and as such, the admission of the petition on
3
rd January 2019 by the learned NCLT would not affect the
said sale.  Relying on the provisions of Section 54 of the TP
Act,   the   learned   Solicitor   General   submitted   that   merely
because a part of the payment was received subsequently
after initiation of CIRP, it will not deprive the appellant Bank
from receiving the said money in pursuance to the sale which
has already been completed.   A reliance in this respect is
placed on various judgments of this Court.
29. Insofar as the judgment of this Court in the case of
Vidhyadhar (supra) is concerned, no doubt that it has been
held that even if the full price of the property has not been
paid, the transaction of the sale will take effect and the title
9 (2021) 9 SCC 657
19
would pass on that transaction.  This Court has further held
that the real test is the intention of the parties.  It has been
held that the parties must intend to transfer ownership of the
property and that they must also intend that the price would
be paid either in praesenti or in future.  However, it is to be
noted that in the said case, the defendant No.2 had not only
executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff but had
presented it for registration, admitted its execution before the
Sub­Registrar before whom the remaining part of the sale
consideration was paid and thereafter, the document was
registered.
30. In   the   case   of  B.   Arvind   Kumar  (supra),   the
property in question was a suit property and was sold in a
public   auction.     The   sale   was   confirmed   by   the   District
Judge, Civil and Military Station, Bangalore.  What has been
held by this Court is that when a property is sold by public
auction in pursuance of the order of the court and the bid is
accepted and the sale is confirmed by the court in favour of
the purchaser, the sale becomes absolute and the title vests
in the purchaser.  It has been held that a sale certificate is
20
issued   to   the   purchaser   only   when   the   sale   becomes
absolute.     It   was   held   that   when   the   auction   purchaser
derives title on confirmation of sale in his favour and a sale
certificate is issued evidencing such sale and title, no further
deed of transfer from the court is contemplated or required.
Additionally, in the said case, the Court found that the sale
certificate itself was registered.
31. In the case of  Kaliaperumal  (supra) also, the sale
deed   was   registered   on   partial   payment   of   consideration.
However, in spite of registration of the sale deed, in the facts
of the said case, the Court held that what was important is
the intention of the parties.   It was held that normally the
ownership   and   the   title   of   the   property   will   pass   to   the
purchaser on registration of the sale deed with effect from the
date of execution of the sale deed.  However, that was not an
invariable rule.  What was paramount, was the intention of
the parties.   In the facts of the said case, the Court held that
the parties intended that the ownership of the property would
be transferred to the appellant only after the receipt of the
entire   sale   consideration   by   the   vendors   as   a   condition
21
precedent.   Upon interpretation of the sale deed, the Court
found that the title was intended to be passed only on the
payment of the balance consideration.
32. It is further to be noted that the present case arises
out of a statutory sale.  The sale would be governed by Rules
8 and 9 of the said Rules.  The sale would be complete only
when the auction purchaser makes the entire payment and
the   authorised   officer,   exercising   the   power   of   sale,   shall
issue a certificate of sale of the property in favour of the
purchaser in the Form given in Appendix V to the said Rules.
33. In the case of Shakeena and Another v. Bank of
India   and   Others10,   which   was   a   case   arising   out   of
SARFAESI Act, this Court has held that the sale certificate
issued   in   favour   of   the   respondent   No.3   did   not   require
registration   and   that   the   sale   process   was   complete   on
issuance of the sale certificate.  The same has been followed
by this Court in the case of S. Karthik (supra).
34. Undisputedly,   in   the   present   case,   the   balance
amount  has  been  accepted  by the appellant  Bank on 8th
10 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1059
22
March   2019.     The   sale   under   the   statutory   scheme   as
contemplated under Rules 8 and 9 of the said Rules would
stand completed only on 8th  March 2019.   Admittedly, this
date falls much after 3rd  January 2019, i.e., on which date
CIRP commenced and moratorium was ordered.  As such, we
are unable to accept the argument on behalf of the appellant
Bank that the sale was complete upon receipt of the part
payment.
35. In view of the provisions of Section 14(1)(c) of the
IBC, which have overriding effect over any other law, any
action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest
created by the Corporate Debtor in respect of its property
including any action under the SARFAESI Act is prohibited.
We are of the view that the appellant Bank could not have
continued the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act once the
CIRP was initiated and the moratorium was ordered.
36. Insofar as the contention of the appellant Bank that
the petition filed by the Corporate Debtor was mala fide is
concerned, we do not find any merit in the said contention.
All the details with regard to action taken by the appellant
23
Bank have been specifically mentioned in the petition filed by
the Corporate Debtor. Insofar as the contention with regard
to liquidation order being passed is concerned, the same is
already under challenge before the learned NCLAT.  As such,
we need not make any observation with regard to the same. 
37. We,   therefore,   find   that   no   case   is   made   out   for
interfering with the concurrent orders passed by the learned
NCLT dated 15th  July 2020 and learned NCLAT dated 26th
March 2021.
38. In   the   result,   the   present   appeal   is   dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of in the
above terms.  No order as to costs.
……..….......................J.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
…….........................J.       
[B.R. GAVAI]
NEW DELHI;
MAY 18, 2022.
24

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

संविधान की प्रमुख विशेषताओं का उल्लेख | Characteristics of the Constitution of India

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर