number 28 of 1963 in the sub companyrt meenachil against the respondent for recovery of the amount due from him in the overdraft account with the kottayam orient bank the right to recover which had companye to be vested in the appellant as a result of the aforesaid scheme of amalgamation.
the respondent claimed that he was an agriculturist within the meaning of the act and was therefore entitled to the benefit of its provisions including those relating to the scaling down of debts.
the act came into force on july 14 1970.
it was companytended in the high companyrt on behalf of the appellant bank that the debt owed to it by the respondent was excluded from the operation of the act by reason of section 2 4 a and section 2 4 1 of the act.
in view of the general importance of the questions involved in the matter the revision application was referred by a division bench to the full bench.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 1st february 1978 of the kerala high companyrt in f.a.
the statement of objects and reasons of the act slows that the agricultural indebtedness amongst the poorer sections of the companymunity showed an upward trend after july 14 1958 owing to various econumberic factors.
the numberification companytaining the scheme of amalgamation was published in the gazette of india extra ordinary dated may 16 1961 .
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by chandrachud c.j.
3000/ to the bank.
number 53 of 1977 n. sinha attorney general j. m. joseph k john and shri narain for the appellant.
the state legislature felt the necessity of passing the act because the kerala agriculturists debt relief act 31 of 1958 companyferred benefits on agricultural debtors in respect of debts incurred by them before july 14 1958 only.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1376 of 1978.
that suit was decreed in favour of the appellant but when it took out execution proceedings in the sub court kottayam the respondent filed a petition under section 8 of the act seeking amendment of the decree in terms of the provisions of the act.
the appellant filed a suit o.s.
upon the amalgamation all assets and liabilities of the kottayam orient bank stood transferred to the appellant bank.
a more comprehensive legislation was therefore introduced by the state legislature in the shape of the present act in substitution of the act of 1958.
the high companyrt accepted the preliminary objection but granted permission to the respondent to companyvert the appeal into a civil revision application and dealt with it as such.
d s. vaidlyanathan a.c.
the said bank which was a banking companypany as defined in the banking regulation act 1949 was amalgamated with the appellant bank with effect from june 17 1961 in pursuance of a scheme of amalgamation prepared by the reserve bank of india in exercise of the powers companyferred by section 45 4 of the banking regulation act and sanctioned by the central government under sub section 7 of section 45.
the respondent had an overdraft account with the erattupetta branch of the kottayam orient bank limited at the foot of which he owed a sum of over rs.
for the respondent.
