Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: debt defined in Eureka Firbes Limited vs Allahabad Bank & Ors on 3 May, 2010Matching Fragments
30. Before we advert to the discussion while applying these principles of interpretation to the provisions of Section 2 (g) of the Recovery Act, and also examine the merit of the contention raised on behalf of the respondent, it may be interesting to know as to how the word `debt' has been defined and explained by this Court in different judgments, with different context and under different laws.
31. Years back this Court in the case of P.S.L. Ramanathan Chettiar & Ors. v. O.R.M.P.R.M. Ramanathan Chettiar [AIR 1968 SC 1047], explained the expression `debt' as defined in the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938. The Court held that the definition appearing in Section 3 (iii) of the Act, despite the fact that it specifically states that `debt' would not include rent as defined in clause (iv), or `Kanartham', as defined in Section 3 (1)(1) of the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929, held that the definition is still of a very wide magnitude and would include `any liability' due from an agriculturists with the specified expressions. The Court held as under:
"'Debt' has been defined in Sec. 3 (iii) of the Act as meaning "any liability" in Cash or kind, whether secured or unsecured, due from an agriculturist, whether payable under a decree or order of a civil or revenue court or otherwise, but does not include rent as defined in Clause (iv), or `Kanartham' as defined in Section 3 (1) (1) of the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929."
In the case of Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry [(1974) 2 SCC 231], this Court quoted as under:
"In view of the rival stands of the parties, the short question that arises for consideration is, as to whether the said claim of the plaintiff can be said to be a claim for recovery of debts due to the plaintiff as provided under Section 17(1) of the Act. The answer of this question in turn would depend upon the meaning of the expression "debt"
as defined in Section 2(g) of the Act. Before we examine the two provisions referred to above, it is to be borne in mind that the procedure for recovery of debts due to the banks and financial institutions which was being followed, resulted in a significant portion of the funds being blocked. To remedy the locking up of huge funds, the Financial Institutions Bill, 1993", which was passed by Parliament and the Act has come into existence.
39. We have already noticed that the legislature has not used words of a restrictive or definite nature. It has intentionally made use of the expressions which are quite general and can be construed widely in their common parlance. There is no occasion for this Court to read the word other than the one intended by the legislature in the provisions of Section 2 (g) of the Recovery Act. Wherever the legislature requires, it uses the expressions of definite connotations and consequences, for example, in the Interest Act, 1978, the word `debt' has been defined under Section 2(c) of that Act by using specific terms of restricted character. It means `any liability for an `ascertained sum' of money and includes a debt payable in any kind but does not include a `judgment debt'. In this definition, the `ascertained sum' obviously means a sum which has been determined under any methods of the adjudicative process while, on the other hand, the expression `payable in kind' is a general expression, again the excluding clause in relation to `judgment debt' is specific. Such is not the language or the purport of Section 2 (g) of the Recovery Act. Mr. R.F. Nariman, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, while referring to the provisions of Section 19 (8) and Section 19 (11) respectively, of the Recovery Act contended, that these sections clearly postulate that, a non applicant in proceedings before the Tribunal can raise a plea of set off, as well as a counter claim, but where the counter claim is objected to on the ground that it ought not to be disposed off by way of a counter claim, as it is an independent action, then the person raising a counter claim can take leave of the Tribunal for exclusion of such counter claim. With reference to language of these two provisions, it is contended that, the claim like the one raised by the respondent Bank against the appellant, is a claim which cannot be raised in the proceedings before the Tribunal and the Bank ought to have taken independent steps, if any, in accordance with law. On the other hand, Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel for the respondent-Bank argued that, this argument has no bearing on the matter in controversy before us, in as much as, the claim of the Bank is maintainable within the definition of `debt' under the Recovery Act.