TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1960 (9) TMI 126
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 33,514-4-0 I.G. currency. The Board came to an ex parte decision that the petitioners before it were agricultural debtors and, therefore, issued a certificate to the Civil Court on January 12, 1956, of the pendency of the application before it. As a result of the certificate of February 5, 1957, the suit came to be stayed. The Hyderabad Agricultural Debtors Relief Act came into force on September 30, 1956. Section 65 of the Act repealed the Conciliation Act and dissolved the Boards. On October 28, 1958, the petitioner made an application to the District Judge at Aurangabad that the stay should not be continued and the District Court should proceed with the suit filed by the petitioner. The learned District Judge observed that from the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, be continued and disposed of by the Court under this Act as if an application under Section 4 had been made to the Court in respect thereof; (ii) if they are beyond the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of a Court, be continued and disposed of as if this Act had not been passed;... Under the scheme of the latter Act (Hyderabad Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, 1956), the Courts having jurisdiction to deal with applications under the Act are three as defined by Section 2, Sub-section (4). These Courts are, the Munsiff's Court, the Subordinate Judge's Court, or a Judge of the City Civil Court having ordinary jurisdiction in the area in which the debtor ordinarily resides. The City Civil Court has jurisdiction in Hyder....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... rival contentions is correct and what is the result of the acceptance of the one or the other ? 3. It is not possible to accept Mr. Kanade's contention for the obvious reason that the main enacting part, by which all Boards established under Section 3 of the repealed Act are dissolved, does not make any reservation in favour of continuation of any Board or in favour of the power of appointment of a fresh Board after the Boards are dissolved. I am, however, referred by Mr. Kanade to Section 3 of the repealed Act, which contains provisions for dissolution of Boards by the Government and re-appointment of the Boards or giving the powers of the Boards to certain officers mentioned in it. The scheme of Section 3 is to have a Board with a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3 will still be operative for the purpose of re-constitution of a Board or Boards. The contention is that since the second part of the proviso provides that such proceedings, as do not fall within the jurisdiction of a Court, shall be continued as if the Act had not been passed, must mean that the Boards continue regarding those applications. That would have been so, provided the existence of the Boards was maintained and their jurisdiction continued. Merely from the language of this proviso it is not possible to say, that though the Legislature, by mandatory language, has declared that all Boards shall be dissolved, they continued to exist. It is an admitted fact that the Boards have ceased to function after the Act came into force. I mus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elf have covered the alleged right, and have protected it, yet being, as I have pointed out, physically inconsistent with the doing of the thing which is authorized to be done by the special Act, that saving clause would cease to be operative. I think the law is clearly laid down by Lord Coke in the Case of Alton Woods 1 Co. Rep. 40 b, that a saving clause in an Act of Parliament which is repugnant to the body of the Act is void.... Under these circumstances, the second part of the proviso must necessarily be treated as void and ineffective. 5. The further result is that all the proceedings before the Board lapse. It may be that there is a lacuna in the Act of the Legislature. It is not, however, the function of the Courts to remedy t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustice that the Deputy Collector had not given any decision, which could be questioned in the Court, that the objection petition of the petitioner should come before the Board when it was constituted and be decided by that Board, and for that reason, it was not necessary for him to make any order in the Revisional Application. In that case, the present question was not argued. Under these circumstances, it is not possible to regard this decision as an authority for the proposition that the Boards still continued and the matter must still be regarded as pending before the Board. As I have said above, the Boards ceased to exist, and unless any provision was made for proceeding with pending matters, the proceedings must lapse. There is then no....