TIRUVEEDHULA VENKATA NARAYANA Vs. VADLAMUDI KOTESWARA RAO AND ANR.
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
TIRUVEEDHULA VENKATA NARAYANA
Vadlamudi Koteswara Rao And Anr.
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THE point which arises in this second appeal is whether an agreement Under Section 14(1), Madras Debt Conciliation Act, which has been duly registered Under Sub -section (2) of Section 14 can be executed by the civil Court having jurisdiction without a prior application to the Debt Conciliation Board for transfer of the decree. The lower appellate Court has held that the petitioner's application for recognition of the assignment in his favour and for execution must first be made to the board and that execution can be had only after the agreement Under Section 14(1) has been transmitted to the proper civil Court for execution. Section 14(2) of the Act is in these words:
An agreement made Under Sub -section (1) shall, within thirty days from the date of the making thereof, be registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 by the Chairman of the Board in such manner as may be prescribed and it shall then take effect as is it were a decree of a civil Court and be executable as such.
(2.) THERE are no rules framed under the Debt Conciliation Act corresponding to rules framed under the Madras Co -operative Societies Act, and as there is in the latter rules a special procedure laid down for the enforcement of a decision Under Section 51, Co -operative Societies Act, it is argued that a corresponding agreement Under Section 14, Debt Conciliation Act, cannot be executed directly by the civil Court. The relevant provisions are contained in Rule 15, Clauses 7 and 8 of the rules framed under the Cooperative Societies Act, and Clause 7(c) in these words:
On application to the civil Court having jurisdiction over the subject -matter of the decision or award, that Court shall enforce the decision or award as if it were a final decree of the Court.
(3.) THIS provision is on the same lines as that contained in Section 14(2), Debt Conciliation Act, the only difference being that under the latter section the decision is to take effect as a decree, whereas in the former provision the award is spoken of as being enforceable; the difference is negligible because whether a decree takes effect or is enforceable, either result can be achieved only by the process of execution. What is important to notice is that Section 51, Cooperative Societies Act, does not contain any provision corresponding to that embodied in Section 14(2), Debt Conciliation Act, and it was, therefore, left to the rules framed under the former Act to confer the necessary jurisdiction on the Registrar and the civil Courts to enforce the decision. The jurisdiction of the civil Court to enforce an agreement Under Section 14(1), Debt Conciliation Act, is provided for in the section itself, and therefore there was no necessity for any separate rule to be framed indicating the procedure to be followed. Sub -section (2) states clearly that the agreement "shall take effect as if it were a decree of a civil Court and be executable as such." In the corresponding rules under the Madras Co -operative Societies Act an application to the Court is contemplated; but as a decree cannot be executed without the prior presentation of an execution application, it necessarily follows that Under Section 14(2), Debt Conciliation Act, an application has to be made direct to the civil Court having jurisdiction. In the result the appeal is allowed, the decision of the lower appellate Court is set aside, and that of the trial Court is restored with costs throughout.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.