Skip to content


Mohammed Oomer Vs. the Sub-collector (Appellate Authority Under the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act) and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1984)2MLJ417
AppellantMohammed Oomer
RespondentThe Sub-collector (Appellate Authority Under the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act) and anr.
Cases Referred and Ramu Chettiar v. Special Tahsildar
Excerpt:
- .....nadu act 13 of 1980. the said applications were contested by the creditors. both the tahsildar, debt relief, before whom the applications were filed and the sub-collector who is the appellate authority have concurrently held that as the petitioner's income exceeds rs. 4,800/- per annum, he is not entitled to the benefits of the act. as against the decision of the sub-collector coonoor, the appellate authority, the present writ petitions have been filed. the only challenge to the orders is on merits, the petitioner contending that his annual income is less than rs. 4,800/-, and therefore, he is entitled to the benefits of the act. however, when the writ petitions were taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the creditor, taking advantage of the decisions rendered by this court in.....
Judgment:
ORDER

G. Ramanujam, J.

1. A common question arises for consideration in these two writ petitions. The petitioner herein who is common in both the petitions filed the two applications as against two creditors seeking relief under Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1980. The said applications were contested by the creditors. Both the Tahsildar, Debt Relief, before whom the applications were filed and the Sub-Collector who is the Appellate Authority have concurrently held that as the petitioner's income exceeds Rs. 4,800/- per annum, he is not entitled to the benefits of the Act. As against the decision of the Sub-Collector Coonoor, the Appellate Authority, the present writ petitions have been filed. The only challenge to the orders is on merits, the petitioner contending that his annual income is less than Rs. 4,800/-, and therefore, he is entitled to the benefits of the Act. However, when the writ petitions were taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the creditor, taking advantage of the decisions rendered by this Court in Perumal v. Chinnakaruppanna Gounder (1981)2 M.L.J. 1 : 94 L.W. 317 : 1981 T.L.N.J. 236 : A.I.R. 1981 Mad. 271, and Ramu Chettiar v. Special Tahsildar, Debt Relief, Trichy : (1982)2MLJ418 , now contends that the orders of both the authorities should be taken to be invalid as they had no jurisdiction to go into the question as to whether the petitioner is a debtor entitled to the benefits of the Act or not since the creditors had obtained decrees against the petitioner in a Civil Court and the Tahsildar, Debt Relief, cannot go behind the said decrees of a trial Court. It is no doubt true that this Court has held in the abovesaid decisions that when the creditor has obtained a decree against the debtor in respect of the borrowing, the Tahsildar, Debt Relief, who is an authority constituted under the Act, cannot wipe off the debt as the Act, nowhere gives him the power to supersede or nullify a decree of a civil court. However, in this case the petitioner himself invited the decisions from the original authority as well as from the Appellate Authority and they had passed orders on his invitation. Even though the impugned orders have been passed on his invitation, since the authorities have no jurisdiction in the matter after the Civil Court has decreed the suit filed by the creditors, the orders cannot be sustained notwithstanding the fact that they have been passed on the invitation of the petitioner. The writ petitions are, therefore, allowed and the orders of the authorities are quashed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.


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