Judgment: S.A. No. 1936 of 1950. —

This Second Appeal arises out of O.S. No. 273 of 1948, a suit filed by the Bapatla Mutual Benefit Company, Ltd., against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs. 246-2-1 claimed to be due to them under a simple mortgage, dated 23rd November, 1936. The said document was executed by the 1st defendant for herself and as guardian of the 2nd defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 500.

The main defence raised in the case is that the debt is liable to be scaled down under the provisions of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act (Act IV of 1938). The plaintiff contended that the debt is exempted from the operation of the Act both under section 4(e) and also under section 10(2) (iii). Both the Courts held against the contention of the plaintiff. Hence the appeal.

The two points may be considered separately. Section (e) of the Act reads:

“Nothing in this Act shall affect debts and liabilities of an agriculturist falling under the following heads:

(e) any liability in respect of any sum due to any Co-operative Society, including a Land Mortgage Bank, reg1stered or deemed to be reg1stered under the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1932, or any debt due to any Corporation formed in pursuance of an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom or of any special Indian Law or Royal Charter or Letters Patent”.

It is the common case that the plaintiff-company was reg1stered under the Indian Companies Act. The question therefore is whether the plaintiff-company is a Corporation formed in pursuance of any special Indian Law. The learned Government Pleader contends that the said company having been registered under the Indian Companies Act, it is a corporation formed in pursuance of a special Indian Act. It appears to me that the words “formed in pursuance of any special Indian Law” are intended to take in companies constituted by an Act such as a University, Corporation, Port Trust and similar other institutions formed under special Acts. A company formed by a private arrangement and registered under the Companies Act is not a company formed under a special Act, though by being registered under the Companies Act, certain statutory conditions are annexed to functioning of the said company. The decision of Horwill, J., in Rukminiamma v. Venkataramdas1, does not strike a different note, for in that case, the question raised and decided by the learned Judge was only whether the plaintiff society was a Corporation. I, therefore, agree with the Court below that the plaintiff-company is not a Corporation formed under a Special Indian Law.

The next question turns upon the provisions of section 10(2) (iii) which reads:

“any liability in respect of any sum due to any public company as denned in the Indian CompaniesAct, 1913, or to any scheduled Bank as defined by section 2(e) of the Reserve Bank of India Act 1934, if the interest payable in respect of the liability is not more than nine per cent, per annum”.

By reason of this provision, the provisions of sections 8 and 9 of the Act will not apply to a debt due to a company mentioned therein, if the interest payable in respect of the liability is more than 9 per cent, per annum. Under the suit mortgage, interest is payable at 6¼ percent, per anum and if a default is made, it carries interest at 18¾ percent, per annum. The defendants made default and at the time the liability was sought to be enforced, interest at 18¾ percent, per annum was payable in respect of that liability. If so section 10(2)(iii) does not in terms apply to the said liability. But the learned Government Pleader contends that the principal liability under the document is less than 9 per cent, and therefore the document comes within the exemption laid down in section 10(2)(iii). This, argument, if accepted, will lead to many anomalies. The rate of interest will be changing from time to time. Before the default is made, the rate is below 9 per cent. If default is waived, it is below 9 percent, and if defaul

Click Here to Read the rest of this document