AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.—This is an application to quash an order passed by the Debt Conciliation Board, Nandyal. The Court has
frequently had to set aside an order of a Debt Conciliation Board because it had been passed without jurisdiction or in abuse of the powers
conferred by the Madras Debt Conciliation Act In some cases the action taken by the Board has been of a most arbitrary character and the order
now complained of is of that nature.
The first, second and third respondents applied to the Board for the settlement of a debt under the Madras Debt Conciliation Act, 1936.
According to their petition they had only one creditor, the petitioner, whose debt was secured by a mortgage in respect of Immovable property.
The Board issued notice to the petitioner, who was thereupon required by reason of the provisions of Section 10 (1) to submit a statement of the
debt owing to him by the respondents. He appeared before the Board and filed the following statement:
The mortgage bond executed by the petitioners is with my brother Boganathula Venkata Guruviah who has filed a partition suit against me O.S.
No. 2 of 1938 in the Court of the District Judge, Kurnool. The document is with him and therefore I cannot mention the exact amount due to us.
He also is entitled to a moiety of the amount, and therefore, notice may be kindly issued to him. I will pay the expenses of the notice. I therefore
request that a statement of amount may be called for from Boganathula Venkata Garuviah, resident of Mahadevapuram, Sirvel Taluk.
The reason for his request was that the sums paid on account of the mortgage debt were endorsed on the document.
In these circumstances this was a very reasonable request for the petitioner to make to the Board, but instead of complying with it and despite
the fact that the debtor respondents had admitted the mortgage debt and were asking for a settlement the respondent Board passed an order in
purported exercise of the powers conferred upon it by Section 10 (2) of the Act declaring the debt to be discharged. It is difficult to imagine a
more unjust order. In my opinion, this Board has shown itself to be unfit to discharge its duties under the Act. The order will be quashed with costs
against all the respondents.