V K BALAKRISHNAN Vs. ASOKA BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petition which raises the question whether an agriculturist debtor can claim relief under S.15 to 18 of Act 31 of 1958 in respect of debts incurred by him after the commencement of the Act, has been referred to the Full Bench by Vaidialingam, J. The answer to the question depends primarily on an interpretation of S.15 and 18 of the Act.

(2.) The contention of the learned advocate for the first counter petitioner is that in view of S.15 and the definition of debt in S.2(c) of the Act, the settlement of liabilities by court under S.18 on an application filed under S.15(1) of the Act must be confined to debts incurred before the date of commencement of the Act. In support of this proposition the learned counsel cited the following observation from the decision in Balakrishnan Nair v. Mohammed Kunju, 1964 KLT 12 .

(3.) But a Division Bench of this Court in 1963 KLT 653 , following the decisions in 1960 KLT 865 and 1961 KLT 377 , was of the view that the definition of the word debt in S.2 clause (c) does not govern the content of that expression occurring in S.15 of the Act. In view of these decisions and the use of the word liabilities in S.18, it is contended on behalf of the revision petitioner that the agriculturist if competent to file an application under S.15(1) is entitled to a settlement of all his debts whether incurred prior or subsequent to the Act.