9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 30 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934. 2. Definition and scope of the term "debt" as per Section 7(1) of the Act. 3. Definition and scope of the term "debtor" as per Section 7(2) of the Act. 4. Calculation of the amount due to the plaintiff. 5. Entitlement to expenses and interest on expenses. 6. Refund of fire insurance premium. Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of Section 30 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934: The primary issue is whether Section 30 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934, as extended to Delhi, applies to the suit filed by the plaintiff, Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC). The LIC contended that Section 30 does not apply, claiming interest at 7-1/2% p.a. with half-yearly rests as per the mortgage deed. Conversely, the borrowers argued that Section 30 forbids the court from passing a decree for a sum larger than twice the amount actually advanced, less any amount already received by the creditor. The court emphasized that Section 30 codifies the ancient doctrine of damdupat, which protects borrowers from oppressive exactions by lenders. 2. Definition and Scope of the Term "Debt" as per Section 7(1) of the Act: Section 7(1) defines "debt" as inclusive of all liabilities of a debtor in cash or kind, secured or unsecured, payable under a decree or order of a civil court or otherwise, whether mature or not. The court clarified that the term "debt" in Section 7(1) includes mortgage debts and is not limited by the narrower definition of "debtor" in Section 7(2). The court affirmed that the rule of damdupat applies to all debts as defined in Section 7(1), irrespective of the status of the debtor. 3. Definition and Scope of the Term "Debtor" as per Section 7(2) of the Act: Section 7(2) defines "debtor" as a person who owes a debt and fulfills one of three additional qualifications related to agriculture or limited assets. The court concluded that the term "debtor" in Section 7(2) is a narrower definition intended for the purposes of Part IV of the Act, which deals with proceedings before Debt Conciliation Boards. This narrower definition does not restrict the application of Section 30, which is based on the broader definition of "debt" in Section 7(1). 4. Calculation of the Amount Due to the Plaintiff: The court determined that the amount advanced by the LIC was Rs. 3,18,335.67. Applying the rule of damdupat, the court could only pass a decree for twice the amount actually advanced, less any amount already received by the LIC. After accounting for payments received, the amount due to the LIC was Rs. 94,917.14. This calculation was based on an agreed statement marked as Annexure 'A' on the file. 5. Entitlement to Expenses and Interest on Expenses: The LIC incurred expenses amounting to Rs. 1,10,694.65 during the management of the property. The court agreed that the LIC was entitled to interest on these expenses at the rate of 7-1/2% p.a., as provided in the mortgage deed and under Order 34, Rule 4 read with Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. The interest on expenses amounted to Rs. 97,000.00. 6. Refund of Fire Insurance Premium: The defendants paid Rs. 1020 to the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd. for fire insurance premium, while the LIC also paid Rs. 476 for the same property. The court allowed the defendants to claim a refund of Rs. 1020 from the insurance company, as the LIC had no objection to this claim. Judgment: The court passed a preliminary decree for Rs. 94,917.14 on account of principal and interest till the date of judgment. The LIC was also entitled to Rs. 1,10,694.65 for expenses incurred and Rs. 97,000.00 as interest on these expenses. The defendants were given six months to pay the amount, with the LIC entitled to simple interest at 7-1/2% p.a. on the amounts of Rs. 94,917.14 and Rs. 1,10,694.65 till the date of payment. Additionally, Rs. 39,595.36 deposited with Grindlays Bank was to be paid to the LIC, and this amount was already accounted for in the calculations.
|
