Open iDraf
S. Subramania Ayyar v. The India Equitable Insurance, Company Limited Through Its Authorised Agent S.b. Mitra

S. Subramania Ayyar
v.
The India Equitable Insurance, Company Limited Through Its Authorised Agent S.b. Mitra

(High Court Of Judicature At Madras)

Civil Revision Petition No. 1324 Of 1939 | 30-07-1941


The contention raised in this petition under Madras Act IV of 1938 is one which, so far as I am aware, is not covered by authority; but it seems to me to be clearly untenable. The petitioner was employed by the India Equitable Insurance Company, Limited and he borrowed from his employers in 1927 a sum of Rs. 250 on a promissory note carrying interest at 12 per cent per annum. In 1930 that debt was renewed by the execution of a fresh promissory note for Rs. 340 with interest at the same rate. In 1933 there was a further renewal by the execution of a note for Rs. 450 carrying interest at only 9 per cent. On this note the company sued and got a decree on 23rd October 1936. The debtor applied to scale down this decree under S. 19 of the Act and has been met by the objection that under S. 10(2)(iii) of the Act, nothing in Ss. 8 and 9 applies to a liability in respect of a sum due to a public company when the interest payable in respect of the liability is not more than 9 per cent. The argument advanced before me is that because the debt which has been decreed is itself a renewal of earlier debts carrying interest at 12 per cent, the explanation to S. 8 can be applied and that by the application of this explanation the liability becomes transformed into one bearing interest in excess of 9 per cent, so as to exclude it from the operation of S. 10(2)(iii). That is to say, the petitioner proposes to apply S. 8 of the Act in order to make this liability into one to which S. 8 of the Act shall apply. This process seems to me unjustifiable. The liability excluded from the purview of operations under S. 8 or S. 9 of the Act is the present liability under which the debtor is at the time of his application indebted. If that liability is due to a company and carries interest at not more than 9 per cent, it is clearly excluded from the operation of Ss. 8 and 9 and therefore these sections cannot be called in aid to substitute for this liability an earlier liability which bore a higher rate of interest. The petition is dismissed with costs.

Advocates List

For the Petitioner T.L. Venkatarama Ayyar, Advocate. For the Respondent L. Krishnaswami Ayyar, Advocate.

For Petitioner
  • Shekhar Naphade
  • Mahesh Agrawal
  • Tarun Dua
For Respondent
  • S. Vani
  • B. Sunita Rao
  • Sushil Kumar Pathak

Bench List

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE WADSWORTH

Eq Citation

(1941) 2 MLJ 509

AIR 1942 MAD 105

LQ/MadHC/1941/192

HeadNote

Debt, Financial and Monetary Laws — Madras Debt Conciliation Act, 1938 (4 of 1938) — Ss. 8, 9, 10(2)(iii) and 19 — Debt due to a company carrying interest at not more than 9% — Debt was a renewal of earlier debts carrying interest at 12% — Petition for scaling down decree under S. 19 of Act — Held, liability excluded from purview of operations under Ss. 8 and 9 is present liability under which debtor is at the time of his application indebted — If that liability is due to a company and carries interest at not more than 9%, it is clearly excluded from operation of Ss. 8 and 9 and therefore these sections cannot be called in aid to substitute for this liability an earlier liability which bore a higher rate of interest — Debt Scaling Down Act, 1938, Ss. 8, 9, 10(2)(iii) and 19