TMI Blog1977 (8) TMI 174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seeking to recover a debt and therefore Section 4 (b) of the Act has no application. The learned Judge on the preliminary point raised by the guarantor held that the insolvency petition taken against him was maintainable. It is as against this order, the latter appeal has keen preferred by the guarantor. 4. The first question we will consider is about the interpretation of Section 4 (b) of the Act. The section is in these terms:-- The Government may, if satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do for the purposes specified in Section 3, direct by notification, that all or any of the contracts, assurances of property, agreements, settlements, awards, standing orders or other instruments in force, to which any relief undertaking is a party or which may be applicable to any relief undertaking, immediately before the date with effect on and from which the relief undertaking was declared a relief undertaking, shall be suspended in operation or that all or any of the rights, privileges, obligations and liabilities accruing or arising thereunder before the said date, shall be suspended or be enforceable with such modifications and in such manner as may be specified in suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the alleged object and policy of the Act. Similar observations are found in the decision in Tribhuban Parkash v. Union of India, , the Supreme Court has observed as follows-- The object and purpose of a preamble to a statute is well settled and at the bar before us there was no serious dispute on this point. A preamble is a key to open the mind of the legislature, but it cannot be used to control or qualify precise and unambiguous language of the enactment. It is only when there is a doubt as to the meaning of a provision that recourse may be had to the preamble to ascertain the reasons for the enactment and hence the intention of the Parliament. If the language of the enactment is capable of more than one meaning, then that one is to be preferred which comes nearest to the purpose and scope of the preamble. In other words, preamble may assist in ascertaining the meaning, but it does not affect clear words in a statute. The courts ere thus not expected to start with the preamble for construing a statutory provision nor does the mere fact that a clear and unambiguous statutory provision goes beyond the preamble give rise by itself to a doubt on its meaning. 5. Counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that was advanced, that the words used therein would cover persons other than the relief undertaking. With reference to the provisions of Section 4(1)(a)(iv) of the Bombay Relief Undertaking (Special Provisions) Act, 1958, the Supreme Court observed as follows (at P. 1185, para 7)-- Thus, neither the language of the statute nor its object would justify the extension of the immunity so as to cover the individual obligation and liabilities of the directors and other officers of the undertaking, If they have incurred such obligations or liabilities as distinct from the obligations or liabilities of the undertaking, they are liable to be proceeded against for their personal acts of commission and omission. The remedy in that behalf cannot be suspended nor can a proceeding already commenced against them in their individual capacity be stayed. Indeed, it would be strange if any such thing was within the contemplation of law . 6. We may in this connection also refer to the decision of the Bombay High Court in Ramachandra v. Shapurji, AIR 1940 Bom 315 Beaumont C. J. speaking for the Bench, after referring to the nature of a contract of guarantee and after having said that a contract ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The word co-extensive is an objective for the word 'extent' and it can relate only to the quantum of the principal debt. This question has been dealt with and discussed at length in a Full Bench decision of this court in Su-bramania v. Narayanaswami . That was a case arising out of a reference made by Subba Rao J. (as he then was) on the question whether a non-agriculturist surety would be liable for the entire debt even though the principal debt was scaled down under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Agriculturists Relief Act. In this decision, reference was made to the well-known principle that a guarantee is not put an end to by reason of the debt becoming unenforceable against the principal by reason of matters happening subsequently, and that a surety is liable though the claim against the principal is barred by the statute of limitation or by reason of the bankruptcy of the principal. No doubt, there is the provision in Section 45(4) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act expressly enacting that the fact the principal debtor has become an insolvent did not affect the liability of the surety. But this provision in the statute does not deterect from the principle that w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In the result, O. S. A. 49 of 1975 is allowed to the extent that the suit shall proceed as against the guarantors only. O. S. A. 68 of 1976 is dismissed. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs in these appeals. 9. These appeals were disposed of by a common judgment dated 1st Aug. 1977. In O. S. A, 49 of 1975, we held that the suit as against the guarantors was maintainable but it was not maintainable against the relief undertaking and accordingly dismissed the suit as against the relief undertaking. These cases have now been posted before us again at the request of counsel for the appellants in O.S.A. No. 49 of 1975 because of the apprehension apparently felt by him that the dismissal will preclude any action against the relief undertaking if and when the ban imposed by the notification is removed. There is no need for any such apprehension. But we do not mind clarifying the position. We make it clear that the dismissal of the suit as against the relief undertaking is only in the reference to the state of affairs obtaining at the time of judgment. If the ban is ever removed, certainly an action would be maintainable subject to the provisions regarding limitation an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
