Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(7) Section 30 refers to the definition of the term "debt" as defined in Section 7 of the Act. Section 7(1) defines the term "debt" in these terms : " debt' includes all liabilities of a debtor in cash or in kind, secured or unsecured, payable under a decree or order of a civil court or otherwise, whether mature or not, but shall not include debts incurred for the purposes of trade, arrears of wages, land revenue or any debt which is barred by the law of limitation, or debts due to co-operative banks or to co-operative societies or to the State Bank of India or to any banking company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, prior to the first day of April, 1937, or any bank included in the Second Schedule to the Reserve Bank of India Act 1934, other than debts transferred to such societies, banks or banking companies during the pendency of an application under section 9 in which such debts could be taken into consideration for the purposes of this Act, or debts transferred to such societies, banks or banking companies on or after the 2nd day of September, 1938, if in the opinion of the board such transfer was effected with a view to avoid the operation of this Act." Immediately after this' the term "debtor" is denned in Section 7(2) :

(9) In my opinion the term 'debt' as defined in Section 7(1) alone has to be read in Section 30. The term 'debtor' as defined in Section 7(2) has nothing to do with the applicability of Section 30. This conclusion is based on the scheme of arrangement of the Act. The Act is divided into 8 part's. Section 7 appears in Part Iv headed as "Debt Conciliation Boards". The term: 'debtor' as defined in Section 7(2) was defined for the benefit of those persons who were entitled to apply to the "Debt Conciliation Boards" for the reduction of their debts'. Only a 'debtor' as defined in Section 7(2) can apply to the Debt Conciliation Board set up by the Chief Commissioner. Such a person must fulfill one of the three qualifications enumerated in Section 7(2). He must have the "status" of a "debtor" defined in sub-section (2). If he has lost that status he cannot apply to the Debt Conciliation Board. For example, if his assets exceed Rs. 5000 he will not be entitled to apply to the Debt Conciliation Board for the scaling down of his debts.

(12) This precise question has been the subject mater of a full bench of the Punjab High Court in Mangat Rai v. Kidar Nath 1961 (63) Plr, 617(2) (Per Mehar Singh, Grover and Mahajan JJ). Two questions were referred to the full bench. We are directly concerned with one of them. That was the question: "Whether it is open to the legal representatives of a debtor to invoke the help of Section 30 of Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act in a suit for possession by redemption?" The principal argument before the full bench in that case was that the legal represen'ative of a deceased debtor is not a "debtor" within the meaning of the term as defined in Section 7(2) and therefore he was not entitled to the benefit of Section 30 of the Act, namely, the rule of damdupat. This argument was rejected by the court. It was held that the legal representative of a debtor will be entitled to the benefit of the statutory protection con- tained in Section 30 of the Act. I will quote two passages from the judgment of the full bench which sum up their views. Speaking for the court Mehar Singh J said : "IN sub-section (2) of Section 7 of Punjab Act No. 7 of 1934, 'debtor' is defined to mean a person who owes a debt and has one of the three other qualifications mentioned therein. The definition of "debtor" in this provision is a narrower definition on account of one of the three additional qualifications, than ^he meaning of flies word as a person who owes a debt. This narrower. definition is given in this provision for the purposes cf Part Iv of the Act dealing with proceedings before Debt Conciliation Boards and it is confined only to this Part. It has been contended on behalf of the defendants that the meaning of the word 'debt' in section 7(1) of this Act should be confined only to a 'debtor' as defined in sub-section (2) of that section, but for that there is no justification as the word 'debtor' is specially defined in sub-section (2) with limited meaning for the purposes of Part Iv of this Act, while the meaning of the word 'debt' in sub-section (1) being inclusive is not narrowed by the definition. It is true that some defined liabilities' are excluded from that definition but that does not make the meaning of the word 'debt' in sub-section (1) as merely confined to a debt owed by a 'debtor' as defined in sub-section (2). A 'debtor' as defined in that sub-section of course is a person who owes a debt, but a 'debt' as defined in sub-section (1) may be owed by a 'debtor' as defined in sub-section (2) and may also be owed by a debtor falling outside the narrower definition of the word 'debtor' as given in sub-section (2)." (p. 620).

At page 621 the court said : "IN sub-section (1) of section 30 of Punjab Act No. 7 of 1934 prohibition is against passing or executing. the decree in a suit in respect of a debt as defined in section 7 of this Act. Section 30 makes no reference to a 'debtor' as defined in Section 7(2), it only refers to a 'debt' as defined in section 7(1). If the suit relates to a: 'debt' as defined therein, the rule of damdupat as enacted in section 30, is immediately attracted, whether or not the party seeking its benefits is within or outside the scope of that word 'debtor' as defined in section 7(2). So reference to the definition of the word 'debtor' as defined in section 7(1), irrespective of who the point. When the suit is in respect of a 'debt' as defined in section 7(1), irrespective of who the defined in section 7(1), irrespective of who the rule of damdupat applies under section 30 of this Act."