S. PL. NARAYANAN CHETTIAR versus M. AR. ANNAMALAI CHETTIAR

Citation: [1959] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 237 · Decided: 31-10-1958 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SYED JAFFER IMAM, S.K. DAS, J.L. KAPUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

(1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
237 
the strikers had ta.ken up a belligerent attitude and 
the lock out was fully justified. The Labour Appellate 
Tribunal a.warded to the 24 workmen reinstated by its 
amended order dated September 28~ 1956, back wages 
from April 1, 1956, to the date of reinstatement as was 
done by the Industrial Tribunal in the case of work-
men Nos. 2 to 24, whom the Tribunal had ordered to 
be reinstated. As we have come to the conclusion 
that the order of reinstatement by the Industrial 
Tribunal of workmen Nos. 2 to 24 and by the Appel-
late Tribunal of workmen Nos. 25 to 48 was erroneous, 
neither of the two sets of workmen is entitled to back 
wages by way of compensation. 
The appeal is therefore allowed and the decision of 
the Labour Appellate Tribunal as to all the workmen 
n.nd the award of the Industrial Tribunal as to work-
men Nos. 2 to 24 are set aside and the claim for com-
pensation which was argued before us is disallowed. 
As the workmen have been dismissed and no compen-
sat.ion has been allowed tho proper order as to costs is 
that both parties do pay their costs of this appeal. 
Appeal allowed. 
S. PL. NARAYANAN CHETTIAR 
v. 
M. AR. ANNAMALAI CHETTIAR 
(JAFER IMAM, S. K. DAS and J. L. KAPUR, JJ.) 
Debt Relief-Agriculturist-Scaling down of decree debt-Enabl-
ing statute coming into force pending appeal-Application made after 
appellate decree-Whether barred by res judicata-Madras Agricul-
turists Relief Act, z938 (IV of z938), as amended, s. z9(2)-Madras 
Agriculturists Relief (Amendment) Act (XXIII of z948), s. z6, 
els. (ii), (iii). 
In 1944 the respondent instituted a suit for the reco~ery 
of money due under an award dated July 31, 1935, whereby the 
appellant and his brother were directed to pay a certain amount 
to the respondent. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court 
Mckenzie 6- Co. 
Lid. 
v. 
Its Workme11 
and Others 
Kapur]. 
October 3r. 
238 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. 
r958 
but on appeal the High Court passed a decree on March 9, 1951. 
During the pendency of the appeal in the High Conrt the Madras 
Na•ayanan 
Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938, was amended by Act XXIH of 
Ch•tti•• 
1948, which inter aliaby adding sub-section (2) to s. 19 of the main 
v. 
Act enabled decrees passed after the commencement of the Act 
Annamalai Ch•tti•• to be scaled down under the provisions of the Act. 
By cl. (ii) 
to s. 16 of the amending Act, which came into force on January 
25, 1949, it was provided that "that the amendments made by 
this Act shall apply to ......... all suits and proceedings instituted 
before the commencement of the Act, in which no decree or 
order has been passed before such commencement ". On Octo-
ber 5, 1951, the appellant made an application to the trial court 
for scaling down the decretal debt under s. 19(2) of the Madras 
Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938, as amended, but the application 
was dismissed on the ground that the trial court had no jurisdic-
tion to act under that sub-section as the decree sought to be 
scaled down had been passed by the High Court. The appellant 
preferred an appeal to the High Court and also made a separate 
application for scaling down the decretal debt under s. 19(2) of 
the Act. 
The High Court took the view that s. 19(2) was con-
trolled by s. 16 of the amending Act and that cl. (ii) of s. 16 was 
applicable to the case, but that as the appellant whose appeal 
was pending at the commencement of the amending Act did not 
apply for scaling down before the decree was passed although 
he had the opportunity to do so, his application subsequent to 
the decree was barred by the principle of res judicata. 
Held, tha,t the High Court erred in its view that in order to 
get relief under s. 19(2) of the Act, read with cl. (ii) of s. 16 
of the amending Act, the appellant must have made the appli-
cation when the appeal was pending and before a decree had 
been passed. 
For the application of cl. (ii) of s. 16 of the amending Act, 
the true test is whether the suit or proceeding was instituted 
before January 25, 1949, and whether no decree or order for re-
payment of a debt had been passed before that date, and it is 
not necessary that the suit or proceeding should be pending on 
the date of the application under s. 19(2) of the Act. In cases 
covered by tha.t clause a party can ask for relief under the Act 
at two stages, before a decree for repayment of the debt had 
been passed, and also after such a decree ha

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.