1. The two questions referred for the consideration of the Full Bench are:

(1) Whether In view of the provision of Chapter IV, particularly Sub-section (1) of Section 23 the Claims Officer is or is not authorized to determine for Himself whether a particular debt of Claim is secured or not.

(2) Whether the ruling in - Ramkrishna v. Board of Revenue Madhya Pradesh, 1954 AIR(Nag) 248 V 41(A) can, be said to be correctly decided in view of the above provisions?

According to the decision of the Division Bench in AIR 1954 Nag 248 ( V 41)(A), the Claims Officer under Act I of 1951 is not entitled to determine whether or not a debt is a 'secured debt' within the meaning of Section 17(a) of the Act. In, that case on an application under Section 19(1) for settlement of the debt, the creditor objected that, the debt was not a "secured debt" and was not therefore subject to the Act.

The claims officer, however, overruled the objection and that order which was upheld by the Board of Revenue was questioned before the High Court. The Division Bench ruled that the fact, that the Act defined a "secured debt" did not mean that the claims officer was empowered to determine the secured character