LexRAJA GANGA PRATAP SINGH versus THE ALLAHABAD BANK LTD., LUCKNOW
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1967 Bombay Dyri!SQ <b MtJ/nujar.Mdinq .co.1W. \". The State o/ Bum.bay umd Ol/u:r8 V~nkaWama Aiytn' J. 1968 JanVGry 22. 1150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1958] stated above. The appeal succeeds in part, but as it is stated that "unpaid accumulations" form by far the most substantial portion of the claim, we direct the respondents to pay half the costs of the appellant here and in the Court below. Appeal allowed in part. RAJA GANGA PRATAP SINGH v. THE ALLAHABAD BANK LTD., LUCKNOW \S. R. DAS C. J., VENKATARAMA AIYAll, B. P. SINHA, J. L. KAPUR and A. K. SARXAll JI.) Statute, Constitutional validity of-Whether a question of inteTPretation of the Conltitution-Severabilitl/, if 1hottld be considered before deciding question of validitv-Dutii of Court -Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908), s. 113 proviso-Con1Utu- tion of India, An. 228. The respondent, a scheduled bank, sued the appellant for recovery of money under a mortgage. The appellant claimed reduction of the debt under the Uttar Pradesh Zamlndari Debt Reduction Act, 1953. An advance or debt due to a scheduled bank was excluded from the definition of "debt" lliven In the Act. The appellant contended that the definition In so far as It excluded certain debts offended Art. 14 of the Constitution as it made an arbitrary distinction between several cluses of debton. The appellant applied to the court under the proviso to 1. 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure prayinc that a case be stated for the opinion of the High Court as to the validity of the im- pugned portion of the definition. The Court rejected the applica- tion. The appellant made an application in revision to the High Court and also an application under Art. 22.8 of the Constitu- tion for withdrawing the case for a decision of the question of the validity of the definition. The Higb Court dismiased the aP- plications. The Courts below held that in eitber view of the question as to the validity of the impu&ned portion of the defini- tion, the appellant would be left without the remedy which he sought, because that portion of the definition was not severable from the rest and the whole definition would have to be exclud- ed and therefore it was not necessary to decide that question to dispose of the case : S.C.R. SUPREME coun:r REPORTS 1151 Held, that the question raised by the appellant came both 1968 within the proviso to s. 113 of the Code and Art. 228 of the Con- . - stitution. The question whether the impugned part of the defini-8".111 ~ 8 . ~alt:lp tion contravened Art. 14 was a question as to the interpretation """ of the Constitution and that question must be decided first. The PT.e.Ji.kabad question of severability could arise only after that question had Bank Lt<l been decided and the impugned part field invalid, Luolma111 ., CIVJL APPELLATE JuRJSDJCTTON: Civil Appeal No. 357 of 1957. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated February 28, 1956, of the Allahabad High Court (Luck- now Bench) in Misc. Case No. 4 of 1955 and Civil Revision No. 189 of 1955, arising out of the order dated August 6, 1955 of the Civil Judge, Sitapur in Suit No. 16 of 1953. Vidya Sagar. for the appellant. Iqbal Ahmad, S. N. Andley and Rameshwar Nath, for the respondent. 1958, January 22. The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKAR J.-The respondent, a scheduled bank, sued the SarkGr J. appellant in the court of the Civil Judge, Sitapur ·m Uttar Pradesh, for the recovery of money due under an instrument of mortgage. The appellant contested the suit on several grounds one of which was that he was entitled to relief under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindar's Debt Reduction Act (U.P. XV of 1953) which reduced the amount recoverable on a debt as defined in it. Now a debt was defined in the Act in these terms: 2(f) : "debt" means an advance in cash or in kind and includes any transaction which is in substance a debt but does not include an advance as aforesaid made on or after the first day of July, 1952 or a debt due to- 'U) the Central Government or Government of any State; (ii) a local authority; (iii) a scheduled bank; (iv) a co-operative society; and 1968 Raj" f)anga Pralap Singh v. The .1lllahabwl &•nk Ltd., Lucknow 1152 SUPHEME COURT REPORTS [1958] (v) a waqf, trust or endowment for a charitable or re- ligious purpose only. (vi) a person, where the debt was advanced on his be- half by the Court of Wards to a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.