P V RAMALINGAM CHETTIAR Vs. DEBT CONCILIATION BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for the quashing of an order passed by the Debt Conciliation Board of Dharmapuri on the 4 February, 1940. It is abundantly clear that the order of the Board was one which was passed without jurisdiction, but the main question is whether the petitioner has by his conduct forfeited his claim to have the rule nisi which has been issued made absolute.

(2.) On the 19 July, 1939, the second respondent applied to the Board for the settlement of his debts under the provisions of Section 4 of the Madras Debt Conciliation Act, 1936. His application shows that the petitioner was his only creditor and according to the second respondent he owed him two sums of Rs. 200 each under bonds which he had executed. Notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 10(1) and the 4 October, 1939, was fixed by the Board for the furnishing of the statement required from him by Section 10(1). On that date the petitioner appeared before the Board and filed the necessary statement. In addition, he produced the two bonds executed by the second respondent in. his favour and a copy of each of the bonds. In the statement which the petitioner filed it was mentioned that the second respondent was also indebted to him in the sum of Rs. 120, for rent. The Chairman of the Board initialled the original bonds and returned them to the petitioner, after which the Board adjourned the case to the 27 October, 1939, for the production by the petitioner of his accounts. On that date the petitioner reported to the Board that his accounts had been filed in the District Court and in consequence the Board adjourned the case to the 11th December, 1939, to enable the petitioner to obtain them from the Court. The petitioner was, however, informed that if he did not produce the accounts on that date an order would be passed discharging his debt. The petitioner did not attend on the 11 December and the Board adjourned the case to the 4 February, 1940. He had not filed the accounts by the 4 February, 1940 and when the case was called on that date he was absent. Therefore the Board passed an order declaring that the debt was deemed to be discharged under Section 10(2) of the Act.

(3.) As I have indicated, this order was one which the Board had no authority to pass. Section 10(1) requires a creditor to file a statement of the debts owed to him by the debtor. This statement must be in writing, signed and verified in the manner prescribed by the Civil P. C. for the signing and verifying of claims. If such a statement is not filed, the Board has power under Sub-section (2) to order that the debt shall be deemed for all purposes and all occasions to have been duly discharged, but Sub-section (3) gives a creditor the right of applying for an order reviving the debt, and he is entitled to an order if he proves to the satisfaction of the Board that the notice was not served upon him or that he had no knowledge of the publication or that there was a sufficient reason for his failure to file the statement. The petitioner in this case did file the statement required by Sub-section (1) and it was signed and verified in the required manner. Therefore the Board could not act under Section 10(2) which it purported to do.