LITTLE FLOWER COMPANY LTD Vs. VAREED POULOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner before us was a Banking Company which, admittedly, ceased to be such on 24 51958. In respect of a debt due to the petitioner by an agriculturist, the petitioner claimed the benefit of exemption from the provisions of the Kerala Act 31 of 1958, by reason of the provisions of S. 2 (c) (xi) of the Act. THE respondent before us questioned the constitutionality of the exemption on the basis of the decision of the Supreme court in the State of Rajasthan v. Mukan Chand reported in 1964 K. L. T. 990. To decide said the question this O. P. was referred to a Division Bench.

(2.) S. 2 (c) of the Kerala Act 31 of 1958 defines a debt as follows: "debt" means any liability in cash or kind, whether secured or unsecured, due from or incurred by an agriculturist on or before the commencement of this Act whether payable under a contract or under a decree or order of any Court, or otherwise, and includes any debt or balance of debt due at the commencement of this Act under the Madras Indebted Agriculturists (Repayment of Debts) Act, 1955, or the Travancore Cochin Indebted agriculturists Relief Act, 1956, but does not include XX XX XX It Then follows the clauses which provide for exemption from the definition of "debt". Clause (xi) reads: "any debt exceeding one thousand five hundred rupees borrowed under a single transaction and due before the commencement of this Act to any banking company as defined in the Banking Companies Act, 1949. " (The Proviso and the Explanations to the clause are unnecessary and are not reproduced ).

(3.) IN this view of the matter, it is unnecessary to consider the constitutionality of the provisions of S. 2 (c) (xi) of the Act in the light of the Supreme Court decision reported in 1964 K. L. T. 990.