Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The above decisions were cited for the proposition that the use of different words in the two provisions is for a purpose and if the field of two provisions are to be the same the same words would have been used and when two provisions use different words the different words used could only be to convey different meaning. Arguing further Mr. L.N. Rao submitted that the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act does not define the term "Decree" or "Order". Therefore, any order, which has become final and enforceable, irrespective of whether passed by any Court, judicial authority, quasi-judicial authority, Tribunal etc. could be the basis of an Insolvency Notice under Section 9(2) of the said Act. Since the said Act does not define the word "Decree" or "Order", it will be offending the legislative intent to borrow the definition of "Decree" or "Order" from any other Act or Code. In Section 9(1) clauses (c) and (h), the legislature has used the phraseology "Decree of any Court" in Section 9(2), the legislature has consciously omitted the prefix "of Court" and has added the words "or Order". Thus the legislative intent being to make it necessary to have a Decree of Court for the purpose of conferring Act of Insolvency under Clause (e) and (h) of Sections 9(1) of the said Act, whereas Section 9(2) brought in by the Amendment Act does not mandate that the Decree should be of any Court.

In view thereof, it will be doing injury/offence to the legislative intent if even for the purpose of taking out Insolvency Notice under Section 9(2) of the said Act "a Decree of Court" is made necessary.

It will be a misconception to borrow the definition of "Decree" or "Order" from the provisions of Civil Procedure Code, while interpreting and giving effect to the provisions of the said Act, in particular Section 9(2) to (5) which constitute a self contained code and has been specifically brought in by Amending Act of 1978.