Skip to content


Gopal Khandu Wani Vs. Vasta Ramsing Fasepardhi and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCommercial
CourtMumbai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No. 582 of 1976
Judge
Reported inAIR1979Bom30; (1978)90BOMLR415
ActsMaharashtra Debt Relief Act, 1975 - Sections 11(1) and 22; Maharashtra Debt Relief Rules, 1975
AppellantGopal Khandu Wani
RespondentVasta Ramsing Fasepardhi and anr.
Appellant AdvocateR.V. Desai, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateM.D. Angal, Adv.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
.....civil court has jurisdiction to consider whether the claim arose out of the contract or out of a transaction not connected with money-lending. - maharashtra scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, de-notified tribes (vimukta jatis), nomadic tribes, other backward classes and special backward category (regulation of issuance and verification of) caste certificate act (23 of 2001), sections 6 & 10: [s.b. mhase, a.p. deshpande & p.b. varale, jj] caste certificate petitioner seeking appointment against the post reserved for member of schedule tribe his caste certificate was invalidated subsequently held, his appointment would not be protected. the observations/directions issued by supreme court in para 36 of judgment in the case of state v millind reported in 2001 91) mah. lj sc 1 is not..........by which the learned assistant judge refused to interfere with the order passed by the learned civil judge, senior division, dhulia, on september 30, 1972, in regular darkhast no. 46 of 1972, filed by the decree-holder for recovery of rs. 3,018,73, under the decree passed on january 26, 1971, in regular civil suit no- 348 of 1969.2. the only point which was raised by the judgment-debtor was that his liability in respect of the decretal debt was extinguished under the provisions of the maharashtra debt relief act 1975 and the maharashtra debt relief rules 1975, with effect from august 22, 1975 and the decree was, therefore, in-executable.3. the point was not raised before the learned civil judge, senior division; but was raised for the first time in appeal, which appears to have been.....
Judgment:

1. The above Second Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Assistant Judge, Dhulia, dated June 11, 1976 by which the learned Assistant Judge refused to interfere with the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dhulia, on September 30, 1972, in Regular Darkhast No. 46 of 1972, filed by the decree-holder for recovery of Rs. 3,018,73, under the decree passed on January 26, 1971, in Regular Civil Suit No- 348 of 1969.

2. The only point which was raised by the judgment-debtor was that his liability in respect of the decretal debt was extinguished under the provisions of the Maharashtra Debt Relief Act 1975 and the Maharashtra Debt Relief Rules 1975, with effect from August 22, 1975 and the decree was, therefore, in-executable.

3. The point was not raised before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division; but was raised for the first time in appeal, which appears to have been filed and entertained in the year 1978. The learned Assistant Judge came to the conclusion that the Debt Relief Act did not apply as it was a decree in respect of the claim arising out of a contract which was a transaction not connected with the money-lending within the meaning of clause (g) of Section 22; and hence the objection raised by the judgment-debtor was not tenable. He therefore dismissed the appeal. The said decision is challenged in the above Second Appeal by the judgment-debtor.

4. Mr. Desai, the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant, submitted relying on Section 11 of the Maharashtra Debt Relief Act, 1975 that the civil court had no jurisdiction to decide whether the decree was in respect of a claim arising out of the contract or transaction not connected with money-lending within the meaning of Clause (g) of Section 22.

Section 11 (1) runs as follows:

'No civil court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Chapter required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Authorised Officer.'

5. Mr. Desai was unable to point out any provision in Chapter III (in which Section 11 occurs), which requires the authorised officer to decide the question under Section 22 (g). Hence his contention that Section 11 (1) bars the jurisdiction of the civil court from considering whether the claim arose out of the contract or out of a transaction not connected with money-lending must be rejected.

6. The learned Assistant Judge has properly considered the law and has held that the decree was in respect of a certain transaction of advances of money and there was nothing to show that it was a transaction in connection with money-lending. The provision of the Ordinance or the Act did not therefore, extinguish the liability of the judgment-debtor. I do not find any error in the said decision.

7. The Second Appeal is dismissed with

8. Appeal dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //