Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Sub-section (8) contains the definition of 'displaced creditor' which it states means:

"(8). 'Displaced creditor' means a displaced person to whom a debt is due from any other person, whether a displaced person or not;" while sub-s. (9) defines 'displaced debtor' and it runs:
" (9). 'Displaced debtor' means a displaced person from whom a debt is due or is being claimed;"

Sub-section (12) defines 'Tribunal' and it runs:

"(12). 'Tribunal' means any civil court specified under section 4 as having authority to exercise jurisdiction under this Act;"
"Person" is not defined in the Act, but in the absence of any express provision therefor or by reason of any necessary implication arising from the provisions of the Act, the State or the Government of the State would not be a 'person'. This was particularly so in view of the description of the "person" referred to or described in the relevant provisions viz., of whom it could be said that he "

actually or voluntarily resided" or "carried on business or personally worked for gain". It is only "a person" who had these attributes or to whom these characteristics could be attributed that was intended to be brought within the term 'person' and as it could not be said of the State that it either "voluntarily resided" or "carried on business" or "personally worked for gain" such a body was not within the contemplation of the expression 'person' against whom claims could be made under the section. In support of this submission, based on the connotation of the term 'person' as used in this Act, we were referred to the decision of the Bombay High Court pronounced by Chagla, C.J. in which the identical question now debated before us viz., the construction of s. 13 of the Act was considered and it was held that no application under that section could be made against the Union Government. The learned Advocate-General naturally relied very strongly on this judgment as correctly interpreting s. 13 and his complaint was that the learned Judges of the Full Bench of the Punjab High Court when dealing with this question in the proceedings which had given rise to these appeals, were in error in refusing to follow the decision of the Bombay High Court. The decision of the Bombay High Court is reported in Advani v. Union of India(1). An application under s. 13 of the Act had been filed before the Judge of the City Civil Court Bombay-the appropriate tribunal under the Act-making a claim against the Union of India. The learned Judge who heard the application took the view that the Union of India was not bound by Act LXX of 1951 and that s. 13 would not enable a displaced person to make an application against the Union of India. The matter was brought up in appeal to the High Court and the learned Judges dismissed the appeal. The reasoning adopted for their conclusion was exactly identical with the submissions made to us on the construction of s. 13 we have summarised a little while before which laid stress on the definition of "debt" in s. 2(6)(c) being inappropriate to a debt owed by a State having regard to the description of the person by whom it was payable. The question whether the Union of India would be "a person ordinarily residing in the territory of India to which the Act extends" was, in this context, examined in great detail, on the assumption that the Union of India might be "a person' i.e., an artificial or a juristic "person" within the Act. Chagla, C.J. then referred to a long catena of cases in which it had been held that it could not be predicated that the Government resided in any place or that it carried on any business in any particular place. It was, therefore, held that the claim made was not a debt under s. 2(6)(c) and therefore the application was not maintainable. We see force in the submission of the learned Advocate- General and if the matter bad to be decided solely on the basis of the expressions used to define the word "debt" (1) I L.R. 1955 Bom. 970.

"A corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in India or, in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place", thus departing somewhat from the concept of notional residence attributed to artificial bodies like trading cor- porations in the law relating to income-tax. Expressed differently s. 13 proceeds on the basis of equating the notional residence of artificial persons or bodies with the actual residence of natural persons and it is thus that though actual residence could not be attributed to companies, it is admitted that debts owing by them are within s. 13 of the Act. It is, therefore, obvious that the reference to "actual residence" in s. 13 is due to the circumstance that primarily natural persons are intended to be included by the use of the words "any other person" and the qualification of residence was necessary to be added in order to fix the forum in which applications claiming sums due from them ought to be filed. From this, however, it would not follow that every attribute referred to should be satisfied by "every person" against whom claims could be filed. The next question is whether there is any thing which is clearly discernible in s. 2(6) which could be held to negative the construction of a State being brought within the scope of the enactment. Confining oneself to what is strictly material "Debt" is defined as a pecuniary liability due to a "displaced person" from "any other person"