9911796707
TMI Blog1966 (10) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and exclusive provision for an insolvent company and that scotches any attempt at the argument that section 530 being a general provision must yield so far as insolvent companies are concerned, to the special provision in section 64 of the Insolvency Act as attracted by section 529 of the Companies Act. Now, it will be noticed that, while section 64(1)( a ) of the Insolvency Act gives priority to all debts due to the Government, section 520(1)( a ) of the Companies Act gives priority only to revenues, taxes, cesses and rates due to the Government and having become due and payable within the twelve months next before the relevant date. The remaining classes of debts specified in clauses ( b ) to ( g ) of section 530(1) rank equally with the debts specified in clause ( a ) so that it follows, on the terms of the section, that other debts due to the Government can come in only after the debts specified in clauses ( b ) to ( g ). Section 511 of the Companies Act says that, subject to the provisions of the Act as to preferential payments, the assets of a company shall, on its winding up, be applied in satisfaction of its liabilities pari passu, and although this section appears in Cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 64(1)( b ) of the Insolvency Act. And the classes of debts specified in clauses ( c ) to ( g ) of section 530(1) of the Companies Act find no place at all in section 64(1) of the Insolvency Act. The result is that certain classes of debts which are included in section 64(1) of the Insolvency Act are not included in section 530(1) of the Companies Act. And vice versa But both sections require that the debts specified in them shall be paid in priority to all other debts. This means that, according to section 64(1) of the Insolvency Act, the debts included in that provision must have priority over debts not so included even if they are included in section 530(1) of the Companies Act And vice versa. It is clear that the two sections cannot stand together; and if, in truth, the effect of section 529 of Companies Act is to attract section 64 of the Insolvency Act, we shall have to choose between the one provision and the other. And the choice must fall on the special statute providing for the particular subject and which applies in its own right, namely, the Companies Act, section 530(1), rather than on the general rule of another statute adopted by incorporation, namely, section 64 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng section 64 of the Insolvency Act and wider meaning which would have that effect. As I have already indicated, the narrower meaning seems to me the natural meaning and there can be no doubt whatsoever that while the narrower meaning would make section 529 (1) consistent with section 530(1) of the Act, the wider meaning would bring it into conflict with that section. What clause ( a ) says is that the principles of the law of insolvency shall prevail and be observed with regard to debts provable. Now the narrower meaning of this clause would be that those principles shall prevail with regard to what debts are provable, whereas the wider meaning would be that they shall prevail with regard to all provable debts. The wider meaning would attract all the rules of insolvency with regard to such debts including the rules of priority. But the narrower meaning would attract only those rules which specify what debts are provable. In the context of the Com panics Act, especially having regard to the provisions of sections 528 and 530 have little doubt that the narrower meaning is the true meaning of clause ( a ) of section 529 (1) What section 528 says is that debts of all descriptions sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovable" in section 10 of the Judicature Act was wide enough to include all rules as to priorities applicable in the event of bankruptcy. But, as I have said, the decision itself proceeded on the footing that, under section 3 of the Married Women's Property Act, 1882, the wife of a bankrupt had no provable debt in bankruptcy in respect of any money lent by her for his business until her husband's other creditors were paid. "In other words, in bankruptcy she has no provable debt until her husband's other creditors are paid " is what Lindley L.J. said : see page 655 of the report. The rule in bankruptcy enacted by section 3 of the Married Women's Property Act was thus a rule regarding what debts were provable rather than a rule enacting priorities, and is attracted by the narrower meaning which I have assigned to the words "with regard to debts provable". Clause ( c ) of sub-section (1) of section 529 is likewise capable of a narrower and a wider meaning. The words "the respective rights of secured and unsecured creditors " can mean merely the rights of the class of secured creditors on the one hand as against the class of unsecured creditors on the other, or it can include also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e consistent with section 530 and the other which would bring it into conflict with that latter section, there can be no doubt that the former construction must be chosen It follows that what I have called the narrower construction, which, it seems to me, is also the literal construction, giving to the words used their ordinary and natural meaning, is the true construction.: On a true reading ; of sub-section (1) of section 529, that sub-section does not attract the rules of priority in section 64 of the Insolvency Act. That being so, it is unnecessary to go any further, and, as was done in Northern Bengal Co. Ltd., In re [1937] 41 CWN. 458 apply the rule of statutory construction that, where a section of an Act which lays down a general rule is incorporated in another Act which gives a particular rule on the same subject, the particular rule will abrogate the general rule. ( Crates on Statute Law, 6th edition, page 223). For the foregoing reasons I am, with great respect, in agreement with the conclusion reached in Secretary of State v. Punjab Industrial Bank Ltd. [1931] ILR. 12 Lah. 678 and in Northern Bengal Co. Ltd., In re [1882] 20 Ch. D. 545 and, with equally ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
