Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(ii) not more than one-half of the principal shall be payable towards interest which accrued due till the commencement of this Act." We see no force in this submission.

11. It has to be noted that the application of Section 6 is specifically excluded by the wording of the proviso to Section 2 (c) (xi) when it says "but the provisions of Section 6 shall not apply to such debt". It has also to be noted that the word "debt" occurring in Sub-section (2) of Section 4 and Sub-section (1) (b) of Section 5 can only refer to a debt as defined in the Act and not to a debt which has been specifically excluded from the ambit of the definition of that expression, as for example, a debt coming under Section 2 (c) (xi) of the Act. The reference to debts due to a banking company as defined in the Banking Companies Act. 1949 in Sub-section (2) of Section 4 and Sub-section (1) (b) of Section 5 must, therefore, be to the debts falling under the first or the second of the three categories mentioned in paragraph 5 above

30. But then it seems to me quite clear that Sub-section (2) of Section 4 cannot apply to an excluded debt. The disclaimer in the, proviso to Section 2(c)(xi) with regard to Section 5 is entirely by way of abundant caution and in no way implies that the other provisions of the Act apply notwithstanding that the debt is not a debt within the meaning of the Act. An excluded debt is not a debt as defined by Section 2(c), and, unless the context otherwise requires, the word, "debt", wherever it occurs in the Act, must be read as meaning a debt as so defined. It is conceded that there is nothing in the context of the body of Sub-section (2) of Section 4 that compels one to read the word, "debt" occurring therein otherwise than as defined by Section 2(c), but it is said that the context of the proviso thereto compels this and that therefore the word must be read in the body of the sub-section also in the same way.
31. It was at first suggested that the word, "debt" as occurring in Sub-section (2) of Section 4 means a debt in the ordinary sense of the word, not a debt as defined by Section 2(c) If that be so, it would include a debt due from a non-agriculturist and also a debt incurred after the commencement of the Act apart from including the excluded debts in clauses (i) to (xi) of the exclusions in Section 2(c) This, together with the construction placed on behalf of the debtor on Sub-section (2) of Section 4, would, of course, make nonsense of the statute, and therefore, the next suggestion was that the word "debt" occurring in Sub-section (2) of Section 4 must be read as meaning a debt as defined by Section 2(c) but without the exclusion in Clause (xi) thereof (making nonsense only of the exclusion), the reason stated being that this is the only sense in which the word "debt" can be understood in the context of the proviso
32. I do not know that it is permissible to modify the meaning of a word that has been denned by a statute, because of the compulsion of the context, otherwise than by giving the word its true and natural meaning, in other words, to give the word a meaning which is neither its true meaning nor its assigned meaning. However. I shall assume that it is. But, the reason given for reading the word, "debt" occurring in the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 4 in the modified sense suggested is fallacious in that it proceeds on the mistaken assumption that the proviso necessarily covers debts coming within the exclusion in Section 2(c)(xi). That it does not. The proviso deals with debts due to banking companies, both debts exceeding and those not exceeding Rs. 1500. Now such a debt, not exceeding Rs. 1500, does not, of course, come within the exclusion in Section 2(c)(xi); at the same time it is not every such debt exceeding Rs. 1500 that comes within the exclusion. To attract the exclusion, the debt exceeding Rs. 1500 must have been borrowed under n single transaction and it must have been due to a banking company before the commencement of the Act. If a debt exceeding Rs 1500 due to a banking company was borrowed under more than one transaction, or was not due to a banking company before the commencement of the Act, it does not come within the exclusion and is a debt as defined by the Act. It is obviously for such debts, namely, debts as defined by the Act and due to a banking company that the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 4 makes provision according as the amount of the debt exceeds or does not exceed Rs. 1500; and there is nothing in the context of the proviso that compels one to read the word, "debt" therein as meaning something other than a debt as defined by the Act.