Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"Whether the application is not legally maintainable?"

The Tribunal held that the society formed in India after partition could not be treated as a displaced person and, therefore, an application under Section 10 was not competent. The appellant had put in an application before the tribunal for entertaining his application as one under Section 13 and treating the case as one of mere misquotation of law.

Observing that an application under Section 13 could be made only within a year of the commencement of the Act and that Section 10 and Section 13 provide for claims against different kinds of debtors and that the procedure for the disposal of petitions under the two sections is different, the tribunal rejected the application and did not treat the case as one of mere misquotation of law. The appellant has Bled the present appeal being dissatisfied with the order of the tribunal.

9. Re. point No. 3.

Mr. Mangha Ram contended that the application was competent under Section 13 and the mention of Section 10 in the application should be treated as a case of mere misquotation of law. I cannot accept this argument. The two sections -- Sections 10 and 13 -- are entirely different in their scope- Section 10 contemplates applications against displaced debtors whereas Section 13 contemplates applications against non-displaced debtors.

Further Section 13 merely provides a procedure for granting a summary relief to the displaced creditors. It does not bar separate civil suits by the creditors. When the appellant came forward with a definite case under Section 10 clearly on an allegation that the respondents were displaced persons, it is hardly open to him now to say that if the respondents are not proved to be displaced debtors the application should be treated as one falling under Section 13 and that it was a case of mere misquotation of law.