JUDGMENT

Rupchand, A J C - This case raises a question of some importance to the Cooperative Credit Societies constituted under Bombay Act 7, 1925. Section 54 of that Act provides for settlement inter alia of disputes between the Society and its members by arbitration, and Section 59 provides that an award for money so obtained by the Society may be executed, subject to certain formalities being complied with, in one of the two following ways: (a) by any civil Court in the same manner as a decree of such Court; or (b) according to the law and under the rules for the time being in force for the recovery of arrears of laud revenue. Section 150, Bombay Land Revenue Code, empowers the Collector to recover an arrear of land revenue inter alia by arrest or imprisonment of the defaulter, and Section 157 empowers him to order the detention of the defaulter in civil prison for a period not exceeding that for which such detention may be ordered by civil Court in execution of a decree.

2. In the present case, the Malir Cooperative Credit Society, having obtained an award against the debtor for Rs. 1,510, adopted the alternative course of recovering it through the Collector who ordered the detention of the insolvent in civil prison. As a counter move the debtor has filed a petition for insolvency under the Karachi Town Insolvency Act and has obtained an order for interim protection under Section 25 of the Act.

3. The Society has opposed the confirmation of the protection order on two grounds, first, that the insolvency Court has no jurisdiction to grant interim protection against arrest and detention by the Collector under the provisions of the Land Revenue Code, and secondly, that this is not a fit case in which such protection should be granted. In support of their case, the learned Counsel has relied upon the case of the Collector of Akyab v. Paw Tun U A.I.R. 1928 Rang. 81. That was a case under the Provincial Insolvency Act, and the Court held (a) that as Section 23(1) of that Act was expressly limited to interim protection being granted to a debtor

under arrest or imprisonment in execution or the decree of any Court,

it did not apply to a debtor who was under arrest or imprisonment by reason of an order of a revenue officer acting under Section 45, Rangoon Land Revenue Code, (b) that in the absence of express words in the statute empowering the insolvency Court to grant protection against crown debts, the Court had no power to grant such protection even after adjudication under the provisions of Section 31 of the Act, and (c) lastly, that as the Crown debts are payable in priority to other debts an order of discharge does not release the debtor from such debts, it would be an improper exercise of the discretionary powers of the Court if any to grant such protection.

4. Now with regard to the first point decided in that case, this Court took a somewhat similar view in Ghanshamdas v. Manager Encumbered Estates A.I.R. 1927 Sind 123. But this point has no application. Section 25, Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, is much wider than Section 23, Provincial Insolvency Act, and is more akin to Section 31, Provincial Insolvency Act. Both these sections empower the Court to grant protection against arrest or detention of the debtor simplicter; and there are no qualifying words to show that such arrest or detention should necessarily be in execution of the decree of a Court or payment of money as in Section 23. This was pointed out in the Sind case at p. 29 with reference to Section 31, Provincial Insolvency Act, and the same might he said of Section 25, Presidency Towns Isolvency Act.

5. The second point of decision in the Rangoon case has equally no application. In that case the debt was a Crown debt due to Government in respect of an advance made by Government under Section 7, Land Improvement Loans Act. In the present case the debt is due to a Co-operative Credit Society or cannot by any means be treated as a Crown, debt. The dictum that

it is presu