LexK. HUTCHI GOWDER versus RICHOBDAS FATHAIMULL AND COMPANY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] 1961 Biren Dutl'1 v. C.C. of Tripura R. 30A( 8) is not, as a matter of law, required to be com- municated to the detenu, it is desirable and it would be fair and jusit that such a decision should in every case be com- municated te> the detenu. If the appropriate authority ronsiders the question about the continuance of the deten- tfon of a particular detenu and decides that such continu- ance is justified, we see ne> justification for failing to com- municate the said decision to the detenu concerned. If the requirement as to such communication were held te> be necessary as a matter of law, ne>n-communicatie>n would render the continuance of the detention invalid; but that is a matter which we are ne>t deciding in these cases. We are only emphasising the fact that it would be fair that such a decisie>n should be communicated to the detenu. Ga/mdragadkar C.J. 1964 Jaly, 24 In the result, the appeals and writ petitions are allowed and the detenues ce>ncemed ordered to be set at liberty at once. Appeals and Writ Petitions allowed. K. HUTCH! GOWDER v RICHOBDAS FATHAIMULL '\ND COMPANY (K. SUBBA RAO AND N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAll., JJ.) Madras Agriculturis's Relief Act-D!bt incurred after commencement of Act-Final Decree-Scaling dow~Madras Agriculturists .'?elief Act, 1938 (Mad. 4 of 1938), rs. 13, 19. The respondent, who was the assignee-mortgagee of a mortgage deed executed on February 15, 1945 by the appellant for a certain sum payable with interest, filed a suit for the recovery of the sum with Interest. The suit ended in a compromise under which a decree was passed and certain payments were made towards the decree. In due course the respondent moved for the passing of a final decree. The appellant applied for scaling down of the debt under the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act. The respondent, inter alia, contended in his objections filed against this application that as the debt sought to be scaled down was incurred subsequent to the date of commencement of the Act, the decree could not be scaled down under s. 19(2) of the 8 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS Act. The Subordinate Judge overruled the objectioa and held that the 1964 debt was liable to be scaled down in tenns of s. 13 of the A1;t. Un K. H11tchi .appc~11. the High Court held that as the statutory right to have the interest Gowder scaled dov1n was not put forVt·ard before the consent decree was prissed, v. the decr;!e could not be scaled down at the stage of the final decree Richobdas Fatha1 proceedings. It further held that s. 19(2) of the Act only applied to m1tll and C.o. debts payable at the commencement of the Act and, therefore, the application for scaling down the decree was not maintainablo!. On l\ppeal by certificate. Held: Sections 7, 8, 9 and 13 form a group of secticms providing the principles of scaling down of debts incurred by agriculturists under different situations. A debt can be scaled down In an appropriate pro- ceeding taken in respect of the same. But in case of debts that have ripened into decrees, s. 19(1) and (2) prescribe a special procedure for reopening the decree only in respect of debts incurred before t11e Act. The 1'-fadras Agriculturists Relief Act does not provide for the reopening of decrees made in respect of debts incurred after it c::une into force, and for understandable reasons the relief In respect of such decrees is specifically confined only to a concession in the n1te of interest. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 80 of 1962. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated Decem· ber 19, 1957, of the Madras High Court in C.M. Appeal No. 303 of 1956. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri. V. Ratnam and R. Ganaparhy Iyer, for the appellant. G.S. Pathak and R. Thiagarajan, for the respondent. July 24, 1964. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SUBBA RAO, J .-This appeal by certificate raises the Subba Rao I. question whether a decree obtained in a suit to enforce a debt incurred after the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act. 1938 (Act 4 of 1938), hereinafter called the Parent Act. came into force could be scaled down under s. 13 of the Parent Act. The facts are as follows: On February 15, 1964, the appellant and 4 others executed a mortgage deed in favour of Kaverlal Chordia for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 payable after three years with interest at 9 per cent. per annum. On I anuary 24, 1946, the mortgage
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.