The Chief Justice.-

The question raised in the appeal is of considerable importance and relates to the construction of explanation (1) to section 8 of Madras Act IV of 1938 recently introduced by Act XXIII of 1948. Our attention has been drawn to an unreported decision of a Division Bench in O. S. A. No. 17 of 1948, in which the learned Judges took the view that this Explanation would not affect adjustments and settlements already made between creditor and debtor. This decision has since been followed by a learned Judge sitting single in S. A. No. 2115 of 1947 and by another Division Bench in C. M. A. No. 180 of 1950. We are inclined to think that the learned Judges who decided O.S. A. No. 17 of 1948 have not attached sufficient importance to the word “expressly” which occurs in the Explanation in arriving at their conclusion. In the appeal now before us Panchapakesa Aiyar, J., has taken a contrary view. We think it desirable that there should be an authoritative ruling as to the interpretation of this new provision. The appeal will be posted before a Full Bench of three Judges.

Pursuant to the aforesaid Order, this appeal coming on for hearing, the Judgment of the Court was delivere

Click Here to Read the rest of this document