JAMIA MILIA ISLAMIA, DELHI Vs. PRITHI RAJ
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
JAMIA MILIA ISLAMIA, DELHI
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The respondent Prithi Raj claiming to be a displaced creditor within the meaning of Act 70 of 1951 of 1951 brought an application for proving his debt under Section 13 of the Act. The respondent in that petition was Jamia Milia Islamia, Delhi which is the appellant body before me. The appellant made an application for the stay or proceedings alleging that there was an agreement between the parties to refer the matter to arbitration and therefore, under the provisions of Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 , the proceedings in the application under Section 13 of the Act were liable to be stayed. This application was dismissed and the Tribunal refused to stay proceedings. The Jamia Milia Islamia has come up in appeal to this Court.
(2.) It was argued in the first place that the debt which was claimed by the respondent was incurred after the partition of the country and that therefore this was not a liability which was recoverable or provable under the Act. In the second place, it was urged that there was no provision in the Act which override the provisions of Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act, and, lastly, it was urged that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to deal with this matter.
(3.) The term "debt" is defined in Section 2(b). A pecuniary liability may be incurred by a displaced person or it may be due to a displaced person. Thus three types of debts may arise-
(1) a debt due from a displaced person to a displaced person;
(2) a debt due from a displaced person to a non-displaced person; and
(3) a debt due from a non-displaced person to a displaced person.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.