Firm name applications and contractual damages under the Act turn on existing pecuniary liability and procedure.

A firm is not a separate legal entity from its partners, so displaced persons carrying on business as partners could use the firm name in an application under the Act where the partners themselves satisfied the statutory definition. The use of the firm name was treated as procedural, and the Code of Civil Procedure, applied through the Act, permitted that mode of description. By contrast, a claim for unliquidated damages for breach of contract was not a "debt", because the Act required an existing pecuniary liability. Such damages arose only after judicial determination, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether displaced persons carrying on business as partners could maintain an application under the Act in the firm name; (ii) Whether a claim for damages for breach of contract was a "debt" within the meaning of the Act and could be entertained by the tribunal.

Issue (i): Whether displaced persons carrying on business as partners could maintain an application under the Act in the firm name.

Analysis: A firm is not a separate legal entity distinct from its partners; it is only a compendious description of the partners who constitute it. The substantive right to apply under the Act belonged to the partners individually, and the use of the firm name was treated as a matter of procedure. Since Section 25 of the Act made the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to proceedings under the Act, the procedural facility given by Order 30 Rule 1 could be applied to such applications.

Conclusion: The application was maintainable in the firm name, provided the partners themselves satisfied the definition of displaced persons.

Issue (ii): Whether a claim for damages for breach of contract was a "debt" within the meaning of the Act and could be entertained by the tribunal.

Analysis: A "debt" under the Act required an existing pecuniary liability, even if payable presently or in future or requiring ascertainment. A claim for damages for breach of contract does not create an existing liability when the breach occurs; liability arises only after judicial determination. Unliquidated damages therefore do not answer the statutory concept of debt, and the Act was directed to the adjustment of debts, not to adjudication of damages claims.

Conclusion: A claim for damages for breach of contract was not a debt under the Act, and the tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain it.

Final Conclusion: The revision applications failed on the merits because the tribunal could not entertain claims for contractual damages as debt claims under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim is a "debt" under the Act only if it represents an existing pecuniary liability; a claim for unliquidated damages for breach of contract is not such a liability and therefore falls outside the tribunal's jurisdiction.

---