NAMDEO ASRUBA MALI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter comes up before us on reference by a Division Bench to resolve the conflict of views in (Punamchand v. Dattatraya) 1978 Mh.L.J., 158 and (Tukaram v. Shankar) 1982 Mh.L.J. 854, on the question of jurisdiction of the Authorised Officer under section 7(6) of the Maharashtra Debt Relief Act 1975 (for short "the Act") to go behind the apparent nature of the transaction and determine the real nature of the transaction and grant relief to the debtor. In Punamchands case, 1978 Mh.LJ. 158, the Division Bench held :---

(2.) In referring the matter the Division Bench, having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in (Om prakash Gupta v. Rattan Singh) (1964)1 S.C.R. 259, was of the view :---

(3.) If the conflict of views alone had fallen for consideration before the Full Bench, we would have addressed straightway to the question, but as the entire case is referred to the Full Bench, it becomes necessary for us to refer to the facts and see what the real question for determination is.