LexINDIAN & GENERAL INVESTMENT TRUST LTD. versus SHRI PURNA CHANDRA MARDARAJ & CO.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G INDIAN & GENERAL INVESTMENT TRUST LTD. ". SHRI PURNA CHANDRA MARDARAJ & CO. December 13, 1966 (S. M. S!KRI AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.] Orissa Esta/es Abolition Act 1951 (Act I of 1952), s. 20(1) Ir. (2), and Orissa Money Lenders Act 1939, ss. 10 & 11-Claims Oflic.r re- qwred under Abolition Act to determine amount of debt 'legally and ;ustly due'-ln doing so ·whether can take into account provisio115 of Money Lenders Act. The appellant company advanced a loan to the predecessor-in-title of the respondents against a mortgage of land in 1906. Jn 1953 the said land vested in the State of Orissa by virtue of a notification llllder s. 3 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act 1951. Under s. 18 of the Act the appellant filed a claim in respect of the loan before the Claims Ollicer. The mortgagor contended that since the appellant bad realised more than double the amount of the loan as interest, the debt stood extinguish- ed according to ss. 10 and 11 of the Money Lenders Act 1939. The Claims Officer and the High Court held against the appellant thougll on different grounds. The appellant came to this Coun and contended that die proced•1re for dctermming a claim as provided 'in s. 20 of the Abolition Act was exhaustive and recourse to the provisions of the Money Lenders Act was unjustified. HELD : The Claims Officer cannot under s. 20(2) of the Abolliion Act determine the principal and interest due under a mortgage without considering the question as to whether the claim is true or whether it is barred by any other law, or whether the claim is still subsisting. These are all matters which properly arise for consideration by the Claims Officer. The expression 'legally and justly due' occurring in s. 20( 1) clearly indicates that the first and initial duty of the Claims Officer is to find out whether any principal amount is at all due to the creditor. For this purpose he would, be perfectly justified i'l relyinjJ on any provisions of other statutes bearing upon that subject-in this praticular case the provisions of the Money Lender's Act. Taking section 10 and 11 of the latter Act into account it was clear that no amount was due to the appellants as they had· already received more than double the amount of ·the original loan. [2~A F; 225 A-DJ CIVIL APPELLATE Jl,TRISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 850 of 1964. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated January 4, 1963 of the Orissa High Court in Misc. Appeal No. 94 of 1960. B. Sen and S. N. Mukherjee, for the appellant. H G. L. Sanghi, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Deepak Dutta Chaudhuri and R.' N. Sachthey, for respondant No.3. 24 1.~ SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1967] 2 s.c.R. The Judgment of the Court '"" tklivered hy Vaidialingam. J. This appe:il. on ccrtific~te. is directed ag:iinst th~ judgment 0f the Orissa High Court, dated Januarv 4. 1963, aPJ rendered in Miscellaneous Appeals Nos. 94 & 95o(1960. The circumstances, under which this a11peal •rises, may be briclly stated. The predecessor-in-title of the respondents had ex:cutcd three mortgages in favour of the ap~llant-company, which is registered in Lo~don. The first mortgage was executed on Octo- ber 2-1. 1903. securing a sum of £1,35.000/-. Inasmuch as. accord- ing to both parties. this mortgage has been completely redeemed in 1935. it is not necessary to make any further reference to this tran- sact ion. The second mortgage was executed on December 18, 1906, under which a sum of £77,500,'- was borrowed by the mort- gagor. Even according to the appellant, in respect of this mort- gage, the respondents had paid a total sum of £1,77,349/-, by way of interest which is more than twice the principal amount covered by the mortgage. The third mortgage was executed on October 21, 1935. under which a sum of £65,000/- was borrowed by the mortga- gor. The appellant demanded the repavment of the amounts due under these mortgages, but the mortgagor, so far as the mortgage of 1906 was concerned, repudiated the same on the ground that the entire transaction had been wiped off, by virtue of s. IO of the Orissa Money-Lenders Act, 1939 (Orissa Act III of 1939) (hereinafter called the Money-Lenders Act): inasmuch as he had paid more than double the original principal amount, as admitted by the mortgagee. The appellant, however, did not accept this repudiation and, in consequence, the company took legal proceedings in London and obtained an ex parte decree.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.