ULAHANNAN ALEXANDER Vs. KURUVILA THACHARA AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A very short but interesting question regarding the interpretation of S.2(c)(vi) of Act of XXXI of 1958 comes up for adjudication in this Civil Revision Petition.

(2.) The petitioner, who is running a rice mill and is also owning a pump set, purchased oil on credit from the respondent Company to work the machinery in the mill and the engine attached to the pump set and executed a promissory note for the amount due. The respondent filed a suit on the promissory note when the petitioner pleaded that he was entitled to the benefits of Act XXXI of 1958. The lower court rejected his claim and hence the Civil Revision Petition.

(3.) Under Sub clause (vi) of clause (g) of S.2 any debt which represents the price of goods purchased for purpose of trade is excluded from the definition of 'debt'. The question for consideration is whether the debt covered by the promissory note in this case is one which represents 'price' of goods purchased for purpose of trade'.