RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR Vs. COMMONWEALTH BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short point arising for determination in this revision petition is whether the provisions of S. 5 of the Keral a Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1958 regarding the calculation of interest are applicable to a debt due to a Banking Company in liquidation.

(2.) THE revision petitioner prayed for the discharge of the amounts payable to the respondent, the Commonwealth Bank Ltd. , (in liquidation), under a bond executed by him on 30-7-1955. In the statement of accounts filed by him interest was calculated in accordance with S. 5 of the Keral a Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as the Act. This was opposed by the respondent Bank, according to whom the provisions of the section are not applicable to a debt due to a Banking Company. THE objection was met by the petitioner by contending that a Banking Company in liquidation is not a Banking Company as contemplated by the Act. Repelling the contention the learned judge held that S. 5 of the Act will not-apply to the debt due to the respondent.

(3.) A comparison of the wording of the Proviso to S. 2 (c ) (xi) and S. 22 (1) will also indicate that the Bankinj Companies mentioned in the farmer will include banking Companies in liquidation. While the former section uses the words 'banking Companies as defined in the Banking Companies Act, 1949' the latter section specifies 'banking Companies as defined in the Banking Companies Act, 1949, in liquidation". Evidently the former provision was intended to safeguard the interests of Banking Companies in general by exempting debts due to Banking Companies from the concession given in S. 5 regarding calculation of interest, while the latter provision which deals with setting aside of sale of property on deposit of money is made applicable only to Banking Companies in liquidation maybe as a measure to facilitate a quicker conversion of the assets of the Bank into cash. It seems tome that the qualifying words 'in liquidation' used in the latter section indicates that but for its use the words 'banking companies' will include all Banking Companies whether actively functioning or in liquidation. I am therefore inclined to hold that a Banking company as contemplated in the proviso to S. 2 ( c ) (xi) includes a banking company in liquidation. The order of the lower court is hence confirmed and this revision petition is dismissed with costs.