SAMUEL Vs. CHERIYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent's suit for recovery of certain amounts alleged to have been due on account of supply of tea by him to the appellant ultimately resulted in a compromise decree. In the proceedings for the execution of the decree, the appellant, as a preliminary point, submitted that the proceedings were liable to be stayed under the provisions of S.3 of the Kerala Debtors (Temporary Relief) Act, 1975 (Act 30 of 1975). The execution court did not accept the contention of the appellant; and that has given rise to this appeal

(2.) The counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of the fact that the liability under the transactions between the parties having matured into a decree, it could not any longer be said that it is debt representing the price of goods purchased for the purpose of trade as defined in S.2(4)(f) of the said Act. Considering the very wide wording of the excluding clause "any debt which represents the price of goods purchased for the purpose of trade" we are not in a position to agree with the line of reasoning advanced by the counsel for the appellant. An almost identical question arose for decision before a Full Bench of this Court in Varghese v. Thomas ( 1967 KLT 10 F. B.) That was a case which arose out of a suit for recovery of money on the foot of a promissory note executed for the price of goods supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant. The argument advanced in the Trial Court was that as the suit was based on the promissory note it could no longer be said that the liability represented the price of goods purchased. Dealing with this question succinctly, if we may say so, Raman Nayar J., as he then was, observed as follows: