MADHAVAN Vs. ORIENT UNION BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A debtor to a bank is the writ applicant. His contention, briefly put, and as stated by his counsel, is that the exemption provided in Clause (xi) of sub-s.(c) of S.2 of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1958 will not apply to his liability to the bank, the respondent.

(2.) Clause (xi) and the proviso thereto of S.2(c) are in these terms:

(3.) The petitioner was allowed to operate an overdraft account with the respondent a bank. He executed a security bond for the sum of Rs. 2000/-. This was in the year 1947. There was another bond, two years later, in 1949, for an identical amount. In 1953, there was a third bond for a sum of Rs. 3000/-. Amounts were advanced on the basis of the overdraft agreements. Time for repayment of the loans was also fixed in the respective bonds. In 1955, there was yet another bond and this was for the sum of Rs. 4500/-. It is said therein that the amount outstanding due in 1954 was the sum of Rs. 1875.4 annas and that the balance of Rs. 2624.12 annas was borrowed on that date. Apparently, the amount represented by this 4th bond remained due at the time of the commencement of Act 31 of 1958. In January 1959, an application was moved by the petitioner for repayment of the debt in accordance with the provisions of that Act. This was permitted. But Act 31 of 1958 was later amended by Act 2 of 1961. The relevant change by the amending Act, for the purpose of this case, is the change made to the proviso to Clause (xi) of S.2(c). The proviso, as it stood before the amendment, was in these terms: