SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1941 Supreme(Mad) 178

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Wadsworth, J.
Thiruvengadatha Aiyangar
Versus
Sannappan Servai
Decided On : 02.05.1941

Debts incurred after the commencement of Madras Act IV of 1938, whether in discharge of prior debts or not, fall only under Section 13 of the Act, and not under Section 9.

Headnote:

Section 9 - Madras Act IV of 1938 - Application to Debt Incurred for Discharge of Anterior Debt

Fact of the Case:

The case involved the application of Section 9 of Madras Act IV of 1938 to a debt incurred by an agriculturist after the commencement of the Act in discharge of an anterior debt incurred before the commencement of the Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that Section 9 did not apply to debts incurred for the first time after the commencement of the Act, and such debts fell only under Section 13 of the Act. The court allowed the revision petition, granting the plaintiff a decree for the principal amount of the suit promissory note with interest at 61/4 per cent.

Issues: The main issue was whether Section 9 of Madras Act IV of 1938 applied to a debt incurred for the discharge of an anterior debt after the commencement of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the provisions of Section 9 and analyzed the scheme of the Act to conclude that debts incurred after the commencement of the Act fell only under Section 13, and not under Section 9.

Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition, granting the plaintiff a decree for the principal amount of the suit promissory note with interest at 61/4 per cent, less the amount of three payments which would be credited to interest at 61/4 per cent.

JUDGMENT

Wadsworth, J.

1. This civil revision petition raises the question whether Section 9 of Madras Act IV of 1938 applies to a debt incurred by an agriculturist after the commencement of the Act in discharge of an anterior debt incurred before the commencement of the Act. The debt in question is due on a promissory note dated the 2nd October, 1938 which discharged a prior promissory note dated the 1st October, 1935. The learned District Munsif has applied the proviso to Section 9 Clause (1) and has treated the debt as a renewal of an earlier debt upon which interest up to the 22nd March, 1938 is to be reduced to five per cent.

2. Section 9 in terms applies to debts incurred on or after the 1st October, 1932, and it does not say that the section shall not apply to debts incurred after the commencement of the Act, namely, 22nd March, 1938. But the scaling down machinery under this section has the effect only of reducing interest up to the date of the commencement of the Act, and from this it may reasonably be inferred that the Legislature did not intend the section to apply to those debts which had no existence before the last point of time up to which the scaling down under this section could be effected. A debt scaled down under Section 9 suffers reductions of interest under that section only up to the commencement of the Act, and for future interest rates the Court has to look to the provisions of Section 12. Section 9 therefore could have no application to a debt incurred for the first time after the 22nd March, 1938; for Section 9 would not provide for any scaling down at all of such a debt, and Section 12 would have no application, for it only relates to interest on debts., after the date up to which they have been scaled down under some other provision. On the other hand Section 13 seems to provide a complete machinery for dealing with debts incurred after the commencement of the Act, and it appears to have been designed as part of a regular scheme whereby debts of agriculturists are divided into three categories; firstly, those incurred before 1st October, 1932, which fall under Section 8; secondly, those incurred from 1st October, 1932 to 22nd March, 1938 which fall under Section 9; and thirdly, those incurred after 22nd March, 1938. The only point in seeking to apply Section 9 to the last class of debts is to get the advantage of the proviso to Section 9(1). It seems to us that having regard to the scheme of the Act, if it had been the intention of the Legislature to introduce the theory of renewals into the scaling down operations in respect of debts incurred after the commencement of the Act, some specific provisions would have been made in this behalf. We are of opinion that all debts incurred after the commencement of the Act, whether they be in discharge of prior debts or not, will fall only under Section 13.

3. In the result therefore we allow the revision petition with costs and grant the plaintiff a decree for the principal amount of the suit promissory note with interest at 61/4 per cent. less the amount of the three payments which will be credited in the first instance to interest at 61/4 per cent. as on the dates on which they were made. The plaintiff will be entitled to costs in the trial Court.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top