Damages for breach of contract are not a "debt" under the Displaced Persons (Debt Adjustment) Act, limiting tribunal jurisdiction.

A claim for damages for breach of contract is not a "debt" within Section 2(6) of the Displaced Persons (Debt Adjustment) Act, 1951, because the provision covers an existing pecuniary liability, whether presently payable, future payable, or requiring ascertainment. Until compensation is adjudicated, there is only a right to sue for damages, not a pre-existing liability. The distinction between enforcement of an existing obligation and judicial creation of a damages liability is decisive, and Section 73 of the Contract Act does not change that position. The Tribunal therefore lacked jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether a claim for damages for breach of contract is a "debt" within the meaning of Section 2(6) of the Displaced Persons (Debt Adjustment) Act, 1951, so as to confer jurisdiction on the Tribunal.

Analysis: The definition of "debt" in Section 2(6) contemplates a pecuniary liability that already exists, though it may be payable presently or in future, or may require ascertainment. A claim for damages for breach of contract is different in character. Until a court determines compensation, there is no pre-existing pecuniary liability; the cause of action is only a right to sue for damages. The distinction between repayment of an existing obligation and damages awarded for breach is material, and Section 73 of the Contract Act does not alter that position. The words "to be ascertained" do not extend the definition to a claim that must first be created by judicial determination.

Conclusion: A claim for damages for breach of contract is not a "debt" under Section 2(6) of the Displaced Persons (Debt Adjustment) Act, 1951, and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction.

---