VOLTAS LIMITED Vs. CENTRAL STORES AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimants M/s. Voltas Limited have taken out this Notice of Motion for a decree in their favour in terms of the Award dated 12th April 1976 made and published by the learned Umpire Shri R.J. Kolah.

(2.) Mr. Gala, learned Advocate appearing for all the respondents, contended that the Notice of Motion is liable to be dismissed and that a decree in terms of the award cannot be passed because the 2nd respondent Surya-kant Rawji Shah is entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the Maharashtra Debt Relief Act, 1975, as the 2nd respondent is a worker within the meaning of that Act and that his earning for livelihood by working as a broker/commission agent since 1973 has not exceeded Rs. 5,000 in any year, and that he has no immoveable property whatsoever and that the only moveable property owned by the 2nd respondent is household furniture and personal belongings of an aggregate value of Rs. 2,300, and that the claimants' claim is for price of the goods and interest thereon, which claim is in the nature of a loan and, therefore, the money awarded under the award or as payable under the award is a debt within the meaning of the said Act. For these reasons, according to Mr. Gala, the claimants' debt stands wholly discharged and, therefore, the decree as prayed for cannot be passed. Mr. Gala also referred to section 11 of the said Act which bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts as no Civil Court has jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Authorised Officer under Chapter III of the said Act dealing with "Liquidation of certain debts". Reference was also made by Mr. Gala to the provisions of section 12 of the said Act, which provide for stay of a suit by Civil Court involving any issues which are required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Authorised Officer. Relying upon these provisions, Mr. Gala contended that this Court has no jurisdiction and in any event, the present Notice of Motion is liable to be stayed and the matter referred to the Authorised Officer for his determination.

(3.) When questioned by me if there was any documentary evidence in the nature of books of accounts to show that the income of the 2nd respondent did not exceed Rs. 5,000 per annum since 1973 as claimed by the 2nd respondent, Mr. Gala, on taking instructions from the 2nd respondent sitting in Court, stated that no such books of accounts were maintained. It was also stated on behalf of the 2nd respondent that no books showing the receipt of brokerage or commission were maintained by the 2nd respondent, nor could he furnish the name of the person or persons from whom such brokerage or commission was earned by him since 1973.