Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
S. K. CHAKRAVARTY, S. K. DUTTA
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Appellant
Versus
NATIONAL RUBBER MANUFACTURING LTD. - Respondent
. Of .
Decided On : September 9, 1970
PUBLIC DEMANDS RECOVERY ACT - CERTIFICATE AND NOTICE - FORMAL DEFECTS - VALIDATION - BENGAL PUBLIC DEMANDS RECOVERY (VALIDATION OF CERTIFICATES AND NOTICES) ACT, 1961 (WEST BENGAL ACT XI OF 1961) - APPLICABILITY - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
A suit was filed challenging the validity of a certificate proceeding under the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913, on the grounds that the certificate and notice were not in the prescribed form and were not signed on the same date. The trial court held the proceedings to be illegal and without jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the West Bengal Public Demands Recovery (Validation of Certificates and Notices) Act, 1961 (West Bengal Act XI of 1961) validated the certificate and notice despite the formal defects, rendering the objections against them unsustainable. The court also held that the second notice, which stated an incorrect date of filing of the certificate, was a permissible variation under the rules and did not invalidate the proceedings.
Issues: 1. Whether the certificate and notice were invalid due to formal defects. 2. Whether the West Bengal Public Demands Recovery (Validation of Certificates and Notices) Act, 1961 (West Bengal Act XI of 1961) applied to the case. 3. Whether the second notice was invalid due to an incorrect date of filing of the certificate.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the certificate and notice were not invalid due to formal defects, as the West Bengal Public Demands Recovery (Validation of Certificates and Notices) Act, 1961 (West Bengal Act XI of 1961) validated such defects. 2. The court held that the West Bengal Public Demands Recovery (Validation of Certificates and Notices) Act, 1961 (West Bengal Act XI of 1961) applied to the case, as its provisions were clear and unambiguous and included certificates and notices with any defect, error, or irregularity in the form thereof. 3. The court held that the second notice was not invalid due to an incorrect date of filing of the certificate, as such misstatement was too technical to warrant interference and did not create any prejudice to the respondent.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the respondent's suit was dismissed.
( 2 ) THE first point that is pressed by Mr. S. C. Das Gupta the learned Government Pleader is to the effect that the learned Judge erred in holding that the certificate proceedings were bad inasmuch as the certificate was not in accordance with the prescribed form. It is a fact that the certificate is not exactly in accordance with the prescribed form. Wording of the certificate issued in the instant case (Ext. 2) is as follows:"i certify that he sums mentioned overleaf are due to the certificate-holder by the certificate debtor (s) and that they are justly recoverable, the recovery by suit not being barred by law. "the form of the certificate prescribed at the relevant time by form No. 1 is as follows:"i hereby certify that the above named sum of Rs?. . . . . is due to the above named. . . . . from the above named (if the certificate is signed on requisition sent under section 5, and) I further certify that the above named sum of Rs. . . . . . . . is justly recoverable, and that its recovery by suit is not barred by law. Dated this. . . . . . . day of. . . . . 19 a. B. Certificate Officer". The learned Judge, on the authority of the decision in the case of (1) Satish Chandra Bhowmick v. Union of India (65 C. W. N. 324), held that the notice not being in the prescribed form, is bad in law.
( 3 ) MR. Dasgupta draws our attention to a later decision of this Court in (2) Messrs. N. C. Mukherjee and Co. v. Union of India (A. I. R. 1964 Calcutta 165 ). In that case also the certificate was granted in the form as in the instant suit and not in accordance with the prescribed form. This Court held that "a certificate is not rendered invalid by a mere defendant of form and even by an omission to fill up a blank" and further that "a certificate cannot be pronounced to be invalid merely on the ground that it does not repeat the exact formula prescribed by the standard form" and dissociated itself from the decision in Satish Chandra's case. It thus appears that there are two contrary decisions on the same point by this Court, and the matter is at large. Speaking for ourselves, we would prefer to follow the later decision and would not like to be too technical. Moreover, as has been pointed in the later decision and as urged by Mr. Das Gupta "the matter is now set at rest by West Bengal
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
