1983 (4) TMI 303 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1970 to a decree passed by a court outside Tamil Nadu.
2. Whether the execution petition filed by the decree-holder can be said to have abated under Section 4(c) of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1970.
3. Interpretation of relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1970 and the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
4. Determination of the proper law of contract and its effect on the execution of decrees transferred between states.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1970 to a decree passed by a court outside Tamil Nadu:
The central question was whether a decree for money passed by a court outside Tamil Nadu and transferred for execution to a court within Tamil Nadu can be declared discharged under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1970. The court held that the Act is territorial in nature and cannot apply to debts incurred or decrees passed outside Tamil Nadu. The Act provides relief to indebted persons within Tamil Nadu, but it does not extend to debts or decrees originating outside its jurisdiction.

2. Whether the execution petition filed by the decree-holder can be said to have abated under Section 4(c) of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1970:
The court examined Section 4(c) of the Act, which states that all suits and proceedings pending at the commencement of the Act against any debtor for the recovery of such debt shall abate. The court concluded that this provision does not apply to decrees passed outside Tamil Nadu and transferred for execution within the state. The Act does not have the effect of converting such decrees into decrees passed by a Tamil Nadu court for all purposes, and thus, the execution petition does not abate.

3. Interpretation of relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1970 and the Civil Procedure Code (CPC):
The court analyzed Sections 38, 39, 40, 41, and 42 of the CPC, which deal with the execution of decrees and the transfer of decrees between courts. Section 42, in particular, was highlighted to show that the powers conferred on the transferee court are limited to execution purposes and do not extend to substantive law. The court emphasized that the Act is a substantive law and does not provide for the execution of decrees or the procedure related thereto.

4. Determination of the proper law of contract and its effect on the execution of decrees transferred between states:
The court referred to principles of Private International Law and various precedents to determine that the proper law of the contract governs the discharge of a debt. The court cited Dicey's Conflict of Laws and several case laws to assert that the discharge of a contractual obligation is determined by the law of the place where the contract was made and the decree was passed, not by the law of the place where it is executed. Consequently, a debt that has ripened into a decree in Bombay cannot be declared discharged by the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the revision petition, holding that the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1970 does not apply to decrees passed outside Tamil Nadu and transferred to Tamil Nadu for execution. The execution petition filed by the decree-holder does not abate under Section 4(c) of the Act. The proper law of the contract, which governs the discharge of the debt, is the substantive law of the place where the debt arose and the decree was passed. The court rejected the prayer for a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court, finding no substantial question of law of general importance.