9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the application filed on 1st April 1970 was within the prescribed period under Section 3 of the Maharashtra (Vidarbha Region) Agricultural Debtor's Relief Act, 1969. 2. Whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to the proceedings under Section 3 of the Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the application filed on 1st April 1970 was within the prescribed period under Section 3 of the Maharashtra (Vidarbha Region) Agricultural Debtor's Relief Act, 1969. The core issue in this case was the interpretation of the phrase "before the 1st day of April 1970" as mentioned in Section 3 of the Act. The applicant-creditor filed an application on 1st April 1970, which was contested by the debtors on the grounds that it was barred by limitation since it was not filed "before" the specified date. The court analyzed the legislative intent and the context in which the word "before" was used. It was noted that the original date specified was 1st October 1969, which was later extended to 1st April 1970 by an ordinance. The court emphasized that the legislation aimed to provide relief to agricultural debtors and should be interpreted in a manner that preserves the right to legal remedy rather than defeating it. The court referred to the Supreme Court's observations in Sheikh Gulfan v. Sanat Kumar, which highlighted that words should be construed in the context of the statute's subject matter and objectives. The court concluded that the word "before" in Section 3 should be understood as "up to," meaning that an application could be filed on or before 1st April 1970. The court also examined the Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the original Bill and the amending Ordinance, which indicated that the intention was to extend the time for filing applications up to 1st April 1970. Therefore, it was held that the application filed on 1st April 1970 was within the prescribed period. 2. Whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to the proceedings under Section 3 of the Act. The debtors argued that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which allows for the condonation of delay, did not apply to the proceedings under Section 3 of the Act. They contended that the Act prescribed a specific date for filing applications, and any application filed after that date would result in the debt being extinguished as per Section 13 of the Act. The court noted that since it had already concluded that the application filed on 1st April 1970 was within the prescribed period, it was unnecessary to decide whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act applied to these proceedings. The court's interpretation of the word "before" as "up to" rendered the question of condonation of delay moot. Conclusion: The court dismissed the revision application filed by the debtors, holding that the application filed on 1st April 1970 was within the prescribed period under Section 3 of the Act. The court did not find it necessary to address the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, as the application was deemed timely filed. The revision application was dismissed with no order as to costs.
|
