(1.) There was a lease of the suit property by the defendant to the plaintiff and a simultaneous agreement by the plaintiff to reconvey the property to the defendant on payment of a named sum. The defendant applied to a Debt Settlement Board for settlement of his debts alleging tnat the transaction was a mortgage by conditional sale. The plaintift denied this contention and disputed the jurisdiction of the Board to decide the matter. The Board made an award settling the debt on the footing that the transaction created a mortgage liability amounting to a debt. An appeal and a revision petition by the plaintiff failed and tni award became final. The plaintiff then instituted the present suit praying for declaration that the lease and thi agreement did not create the relationship of debtor am creditor and that the award of the Board is void and with-out jurisdiction and for consequential injunction. The defendant pleaded that the award of the Board was conclusive and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The Trial Court accepted the defendant's contention and dismissed the suit. The decision was confirmed by the first Appellate Court. On second appeal Chander, J. held that the Court had jurisdiction to try the suit and remanded the suit for trial. On further appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patern the Division Bench agreed with the conclusion of Chunder, J., but thought that this conclusion was in conflict with the decision in Bazler Rahaman Khandakar v. Amiruddin, 48 Cal WN 699 : (AIR 1944 Cal 401). Accordingly the Division Bench referred the case to the Full Bench stating that the following questions arise for decision by the Full Bench :
(2.) The Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, 1935 created a special tribunal for the settlement of debts of agricultural debtors. An application for settlement of debts may be made to the Board under Section 8 and the Board may make an award settling the debt as provided in Section 25. Sections 33 to 36 bar the institution and continuance of suits and execution proceedings In respect of debts included in an application to the Board or in an award made by ft and also render the decisions of the Civil Courts nugatory when they come in conflict with the orders of the Board regarding the debt. Section 38 bars appeal and revision against a decision of the Board except as provided by tne Act. Sections 40 and 40-A provide for appeal and revision, by Section 40 (6) the decision of the apppellate officer is made final subject to the power of revision of the District Judge under Section 40-A. Section 20 empowers the Board to decide whether a person is a debtor or not. Having regard to the scheme of the Act, the Board has exclusive jurisdiction to decide whether a person is a debtor or not and its determination of the question is final, see Sailabala Dasjaya v. Nityananda Sarkar, 42 Ca! WN 415 : (AIR 1938 Cal 375). Section 18 empowers the Board to decide whe-ther the debt exists and to determine its amount. But this section does not give the Board exclusive power to determine whether a particular liability amounts to a debt, nor was such power given by Section 20 as it stood originally, and if a Civil Court found that there was no liability amounting to a debt it could treat any order made by the Board in the matter as void for want of jurisdiction, see Nur Mia v. Noakhali Nath Bank Ltd., 43 Cal WN 322 : (AIR 1939 Cal 298), Surendra Nath Chakravarty v. Haran Chandra Chakravarty, 49 Cal WN 592 : (AIR 1946 Cal 53), see also Matilal Saha v. Chandra Kanta Sarkar, 51 Cal WN 1 = (AIR 1947 Cal 1) (SB). Section 20 was amended by the amending Act of 1940 and the amended section empowers the Board to decide whether a liability is a debt or not and since then, the Board has exclusive jurisdiction to decide this question also: see, Manager, Nator Raj Wards' Estate v. Geda Bewa, 46 Cal WN 12 : (AIR 1941 Cal 658), Mahadeo Lal v. Indra Chand, 49 Cal WN 237 : (AIR 1945 Cal 417).
(3.) The Board has therefore exclusive power under the amended Section 20 to decide whether a liability is a debt or not, and on finding that the liability is a debt has power under Sub-section (1) of Section 18 to decide whether the debt exists and to determine its amount. The decision o) the Board as to the amount only but not as to the existence of the debt is by Sub-section (4) of Section 18 made final and not liable to be questioned in any Civil Court of in any manner other than provided by the Act, see also Section 25 (1) (c) and the marginal note to Section 18. Under Section 18 the Board has exclusive power to decide that a debt which once existed has been extinguished and that its amount is nil and if not what its amount is : tut the section does not give the Board exclusive power to decide whe-ther the debt ever existed at all. By the combined effect of Sections 18 and 20, if the dispute is whether a liability ever existed at all, the Board has no exclusive power to decide this dispute, but in a situation where the parties are at one in asserting that a liability once existed but a difference has arisen between them whether the liability amounts to a debt and if so whether the debt has since been extinguished and if not, what is its extent and amount, the Board has exclusive power to decide this difference. If the difference is whether some transaction, such as a sale and a simultaneous agreement of reconveyance created a mortgage liability, such a difference is a dispute whether a liability ever existed at all and the Board has no exclusive power to decide this difference.
ABOUT US "REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD." is a Company incorporated in 1991 under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Since its inception to 1995, the Company was busy in carrying out the activities related to various Banks' Job Work..
Read More
Sales: sales@the-laws.com
Support: info@the-laws.com
8000853936
9376168072
27, 4TH FLOOR, Agrawal Center, Ashram Road, Income Tax, Ahmadabad 380014.
LOGIN