Back
1939 Supreme(Mad) 328
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Stodart, J.
In Re: Ellappa Chettiar
Versus
Decided On : 06.10.1939
A judgment-debtor is not entitled to obtain stay under Section 25 of the Debt Conciliation Act more than once for any individual suit or proceedings.
Headnote:
Debt Conciliation Act - Stay of Proceedings - Interpretation of Section 25
Fact of the Case:
The judgment-debtors filed multiple applications for stay of proceedings under Section 25 of the Debt Conciliation Act, leading to conflicting interpretations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that allowing judgment-debtors to obtain stay of proceedings indefinitely without limit of time and expense by filing multiple applications was not the intention of the law.
Issues: Interpretation of Section 25 of the Debt Conciliation Act and the entitlement of judgment-debtors to obtain stay of proceedings more than once.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 25 of the Debt Conciliation Act to conclude that a judgment-debtor is not entitled to obtain stay under Section 25 of any individual suit or proceedings more than once.
Final Decision: The petition for stay of proceedings was dismissed.
Stodart, J.
1. The District Munsif is clearly right.
2. The first application to the Board though nominally filed by the fourth defendant was clearly adopted by all the defendants. For they applied for and got stay of execution from the District Munsif under Section 25 of the Debt Conciliation Act on the strength of that application.
3. It is also argued that having made another application to the Board, this time through the second defendant, the judgment-debtors are again entitled to stay.
4. To admit such a proposition would lead to absurd results. In the Debt Conciliation Act there is nothing to prevent a debtor filing one application after another and under Section 25 of the Act he can obtain stay of a suit or other proceedings so long as an application is pending before the Board. When he files an application before the Board a little time must elapse before it is dismissed. In that time under Section 25 he can obtain stay of proceedings in suits and other proceedings and so on indefinitely without limit of time, and obviously without any great expense.
5. In my opinion this is not the intention of the law. A judgment-debtor is not entitled to obtain stay under Section 25 of any individual suit or proceedings more than once. Petition is dismissed.
