MANIMEKALAI AMMAL Vs. SWAMIDORAI PADAYATCHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TO resolve the conflict of views on the interpretation of Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act (Act 40 of 1979), this Full Bench has been constituted.

(2.) SEVERAL enactments have been made to provide relief to the indebted agriculturists and persons right from Act 4 of 1938, the Tamil Nadu Agriculturists Relief Act. We are presently concerned with the debt relief legislations namely Ordinance 1 of 1975 replaced by the Tamil Nadu Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Act 10 of 1975, the Tamil Nadu Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Act 15 of 1976 as amended by the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Laws (Amendment) Act of 1977, the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Laws (Second Amendment) Act of 1977, The Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Laws (Amendment) Act of 1978 and the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act 40 of 1979. A moratorium has been imposed by the provisions of these Acts against institutions of suits during the subsistence of these Acts for a total period of 4 years, 4 months and 27 days. The last of the Act that we are concerned with namely the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1979 excludes the time for limitation and dissolution of stay proceeding in respect of certain suits and applications from 15th January, 1976 to 13th June, 1979. The question that arises for consideration here is whether there is a total bar of filing a suit under the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act 40 of 1978 so as to save the period of limitation from 15th January, 1976 to 15th June, 1979.

(3.) SECTION 17 of the 1979 Act provided for the determination of the amount of debt due either by the debtor or by the creditor and it enabled the debtor to obtain a certificate on the discharge of the amount so determined. There is no such provision under the 1978 Act to a debtor or a creditor obliging to file the suit for recovery or for discharge. It was a liberty given to the creditor to seek for a decree after scaling down of debts. In other words, the creditor is entitled to wait for the moratorium period to pass by for full recovery of the amount. A Division Bench of this Court in Vaithiyalingam Chettiar v. Rangaswamy Padayatchi, 1988 (2) L.W. 330 held that a second suit for the balance of amount due was maintainable and a claim is not barred under Order 2, Rule 2 or SECTION 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Their Lordships held that the intention of the legislature was to deal with under the 1979 Act debts which are covered by the Tamil Nadu Act 1979 and provided for a different amount of scaling down except any such of those cases where, by availing of the earlier enactments of 1978, an order had been secured and full satisfaction had been obtained. In view of section 33 of the 1979 Act, the statutorily restored debt relating to the original debt recognised under the said Act could be pursued with by the creditor as if the 1978 Act had not been passed after giving credit to whatever decree that has been secured in the court proceeding by virtue of the repealed Act. Hence, the second suit filed is maintainable.