Biren Dutl'1 v. C.C. of Tripura

Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri. learned counsel for the appellant, did not press the appellant's claim under s. 19(2) of the Parent Act, but put it under s. 13 of the said Act. 8 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS He tcok ms through the relevant provisions of the Parent Act, which according to him disclose theJegislative policy undermining the sacrosanctity of decrees and pressed on us to hold, on 'a scrutiny of the provisions of s. 13, of the Richobd;; Farha/ Parent Act in the light of the said policy, that'the decree mull and Co. made in resp~~t of a debt incurred after the Parent Act subba Rao J. came into force was liable to be scaled down thereunder. 1964 K. Hutchi Cowder to agriculturists. - "Debt" has been defined Mr. Pathak, learned -counsel for the respondent, makes a distinction between the substantive and procedural ·pro visions and contends that the Parent Act does not make any provision for scaling down decrees made in respect- of debts incurred after the said Act came into force. The general scheme of the Parent Act gathered therefrom may be briefly ,stated thus. The main object of the P~rent Act was to give - reHef s. 3 (iiiJ of the Parent Act as any .liability in cash or kind, whether secured or unsecured, -due from an agriculturist, whether payable under a decree or order of a civil or revenue court or otherwise. This definition is rather com prehensive; it takes in secured, unsecured and decree debts due from an agriculturist. Section 7 of the Parent Act declares that a debt so defined has to be scaled down in the manner prescribed by the said Act. Section 8 provides the mode of scaling down debts incurred before 1932 and s. 9, the debts incurred after 1932 but before March 22. 1938; - and s. 13 deals with the scaling down of debts incurred after the commencement_ of the Parent Act. The relief granted under the said Act varies with the date- of the debt depending upon whether it falls under one or other of the said three periods. While ss. 7, 8, !I and 13 give principles for scaling down a debt, s. 19 provides machinery for scaling down. Section 19 of the Parent Act. as amended in 1948, reads: " ( 1) Where before the commencement of this Act a court has passed a decree for the repayment of a debt, it shall, on' the application of anv judgment-debtJr who is an agriculturist. .••.• apply the provisions of this Act to such decree 1964 K. Hutchi Gowder v. ~ichobdas Fathai mull and Co. Subba Rao J. 310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS and shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, amena ·or enter satisfaction. the decree accordingly as the case may be: (2) The provisions of sub-section ( 1) shall also apply to cases where, after the commence ment of this Act, a Court has passed a decree for the repayment of a debt payable at such commencement." · It may be mentioned that the second clause was mser ted by the Amending Act of 1948. Before the amend ment there was a conflict of view on the question whether s. 19 ( 1) could be invoked in amending a decree passed after the commencement of the Parent Act in respect of a debt incurred before the said Act. Sub-section ( 2) made the position clear and declared that it could be done. The position, therefore, is that in the case of debts other than decree-debts, the scaling down process will have to be re sorted to in an appropriate proceeding taken in respect of the debt and in the case of decrees in respect of debts in curred before the Parent Act whether made before or after the said Act, by filing an application under s. 19(1) or ( 2) of the Board Act, as the case may be. But s. 19 on its express terms does . not permit the filing of an applica tion for amending a decree by scaling down a debt incur red after the Parent Act came into force. Doubtless, as Mr. Viswanatha Sastri contents, the Parent Act, to some extent, undermines the sanctity of decrees, but that is to implement the policy of the LegiSlature to give relief to al(riculturists over burdened with debts. But a Court, p;rticularly in the case of an expropriatory measure like the Act, cannot rely upon the supposed policy of the Legis lature and extend the scope of the relief given to agricultu rists by analogy. The scope of the relief shall necessarily be confined to that given by the Act expressly or by neces sary implication. A fair reading of sub-sections ( 1) and (2) of s. 19 of the Parent Act disclose beyond any reason able doubt that the Legislature does not provide under any machinery for reopening a decree made in res pect of a debt incurred after the Act came into force. 8 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 311 ' '· Realizing this difficulty; Mr .. Viswanatha Sastri relied . upon the provisions of s, f3 itself and contends .that the Jaid section. provides, in the case of debts incurred after · Gowder "· the Parent .Act came into ·rorce, both for the substantive Richobdas Fathai- re!ief as well as for the machinery to give the .said relief. mull and Co. The said section re ,c'. 0 : Subba Rao J. 1964 . x. Hutchi "In any proceeding for recovery of a debt, Court shall scale down all interest due on any debt incurred by an agriculturist after co=encement of this Act, so as not to ex ceed a sum calculated at 61 per cent. ·annum, simple interest ..•......... " The Government by notification reduced the· rates of interest to 5! per cent. per annum with effect from. July 29, 1947. Let us scrutinize the provisions of the section !n the light of the arguments advanced. Learned counsel asks us to read the words . debt" instead of "debt" in s. 13 of the Parent Act, "decree "debt" is defined to take in a decree debt, and by so read ing, he contends, in any proceeding, which, according to him, includes a final de.cree application, the court shall scale down all interest in the manner prescribed under.· It is further argued that final decree proceedings the word are only proceedings in a suit and, therefore, wrecovery" in the sub-section is appropriate in the context of a decree debt. This argument, if accepted, disturbs the entire scheme of the Parent Act. Section 13 is one of the group of sections viz., ss. 8, 9 and 13, dealing with the principles of scaling down in a proceeding for the recovery of a debt. But where a decree is to be amended, the Act has taken care to provide expressly for the amendment of the deeree. If the Legislature intended to provide for the amendment of decrees even in cases falling under s. 13, it would. have added another appropriate clause in s. 19. The absence of anv such clause indicates an intention that in cases of . debts comprehended . by s. 13. the Legislature gives only a limited relief expressly provided thereunder .. · It is said, so far as the reopening of decrees after the Parent Act came into force is· concerned, whether in respect of 312 . SUPREl\IE COURT REPORTS 1964 K. Hutchi Gowder debts incurred before or after th~ sale! Act, th"re cannot possibly be a justification for a difference in the manner of their treatment. A plausible reason can be discerned for Richobd:; Fathi- this legislative distinction oetween debts incurred. before the mull and Co.. Ac( and those incurred after the Act; for, in the former Subba Rao J. when the debts were incurred the Act was not in existence and, as the debtors Could not have anticipated the provisions of the Act, they were given the summary remedy, but the agriculturists who incurred debtS after, the Parent Act, with open eyes were denied the saine; while in the former, they were allowed to reopen decrees made in respect of the said debts before or after .the Act, in the latter they could claim. relief only in an appropriate proceeding before the decree was made and that too was confined to the limited relief in regard to the rate of interest provided thereunder. The difference in the treatment of the two categories of decrees was brought about by sub-section (2) of s. 19 a oded by a later amendment. Whatever may be the reason for the difference, we cannot extend the scope of s. 13 by analogy or by stretching the meaning of the words "proceeding" . and "recovery". · , Reliance is placed upon s. 13-A of the Parent Act. which reads: "Wher~ a debt is incurred by a reason who would be" an agriculturist as defined in section 3(ii) but for the operation of proviso (B) or pro viso (C) to that section. the rate of interest applicable to the debt shall be the rate appli· cable to it under the law. custom. contract or decree of Court' under which the debt arises or the rate applicable to an agriculturist under section 13, whichever rate is less." On the basis of this section a contention is raised that ~s. 13 and 13A relate to the same subject-matter with th~ difference tliat while s. 13 applies to a~culturists who incurred debts after the Parent Act came into force. s. 13 A applies to persons who would be agriculturists but for th~ provisos (B) and ( C) of s. 3 (ii) in respect of debts in curred after the Act. and as a fair reading of s. 13-A indi cates that it applies to decrees made in regard to debts in- .t> S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REP01{TS 313 1964 curred after the Act, it must be interpreted reasonably that s. 13 also applies to such decrees. Mr. Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that s. 13-A only applies to pre-Act debts, as s. 7 which Richobd;.; Fath< declares the scheme of scaling down of debts applies only mull and Co. to pre-Act debts and the only exception to it is s. 13-A. Subba Rao J. Be that as it may, we cannot construe s. 13 with the aid of s. 13-A which was introduced by the Amending Act 23 of 1948. This appeal .does not call for an interpretation of s. 13-A of the Act and we shall not express any opinion thereon. K. Hutchi Goll'der The legal position may be briefly stated thus. Section 7, 8, 9 and 13 form a group of sections providing principles of scaling down of debt• incurred by agricul mrists under different situations. A debt can be scaled Clown in an appropriate proceeding taken in respect of the same. But in the case of debts that have ripened decrees, s. 19(1) and (2) prescribe a special procedure ror reopening the decree only in respect of debts incurred before the Parent Act. The Parent Act does not provide for the reopening of decrees made in respect of debts in curred after it came into force, and for understandable reasons the relief in respect of such decrees is specifically confined only to a concession in the rate of interest. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the order o! In the result, the appeal fails the High Court is correct. and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed AMRIT BANASPATI CO. LTD. & ANR. v. STA TE OF UTT AR PRADESH AND ORS. (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C. J., M. HIDAYATULLAH, K. C. DAS GUPTA, J. C. SHAH AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.) Sales Tax-Salts tax levied at the Ttltt of one anna pe1 rupr,._Nelv' d•cimal coina~• introduad by Act No. 31 of 19SS-EQect on calculation of 1ales ta.r-Sales tax to be levied at the rate (If one 19M July, 27