Central

Section 27 of The Murshidabad Estate Administration Act, 1933

Effect of withdrawal from entry by State Government.

Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this or any other Act, the withdrawal bythe 1[State Government] from entry upon the immoveable properties of the estate shall not have the effect of reviving any of the proceeding referred to in clause first of section 4 if the debt or liability in respect of which such proceedings were instituted is barred under section 10. Nothing in section 4 shall bar the revival after such withdrawal of any other of the proceedings referred to in the said clause: Provided that no Court shall entertain any suit ofproceeding against the Nawab Bahadur in which the amount claimed is in excess of the amount determined under section 11, 13 or 22, as the case may be, together with any further interest due thereon, or in which interest is claimed at a rate higher than the rate determined as just and proper under those sections.

Summary

When the State Government stops managing the estate, most legal proceedings that were paused under Section 4 can start again.
A legal case will not start again if the debt or liability was officially barred because it was not reported to the Manager on time under Section 10.
Creditors are forbidden from filing new lawsuits to collect more money than the specific amount already decided by the Manager or the Board of Revenue.
Lawsuits cannot claim an interest rate that is higher than the rate determined as fair and proper during the management period.
These rules apply even if other laws might normally allow such lawsuits to continue.

Practical examples

1In 1934, a creditor named Mr. Gupta had a pending court case for 5,000 rupees. When the Manager was appointed, the case was frozen. Mr. Gupta forgot to submit his claim to the Manager within the six month deadline. When the government finally withdrew from the estate in 1940, Mr. Gupta tried to restart his old court case. Because his debt was barred under Section 10 for his silence, Section 27 prevents the case from ever coming back to life.

2A lender named Mrs. Singh had her debt reviewed by the Manager in 1935. She claimed 10,000 rupees at 12 percent interest, but the Manager determined the debt was only 7,000 rupees at 6 percent interest. After the government stopped managing the estate in 1942, she sued the Nawab for the full 10,000 rupees. Under Section 27, the court must refuse to hear her case because she is trying to get more than the amount and interest rate officially set during the administration.

FAQ

1. If the government leaves the estate, do I automatically get to resume my old lawsuit against the Nawab?

Most lawsuits can resume, but not if your debt was barred under Section 10 for failing to notify the Manager in time.

2. Can I sue for the original amount of my loan if the Manager reduced it?

No, you are strictly limited to the amount determined under Section 11, 13, or 22 of the Act.

3. What happens if I try to charge a higher interest rate after the government withdrawal?

The court is prohibited from entertaining any proceeding that seeks an interest rate higher than what was determined to be just and proper under the Act.

Test yourself

1.Under Section 27 of The Murshidabad Estate Administration Act, 1933, what happens to a legal proceeding that was barred under Section 10 during the management period?

2.According to Section 27 of The Murshidabad Estate Administration Act, 1933, what is the limit on the amount a creditor can claim in a new lawsuit after management ends?

3.Under Section 27 of The Murshidabad Estate Administration Act, 1933, what is the rule regarding interest rates in lawsuits filed after the government withdraws?

4.How does Section 27 of The Murshidabad Estate Administration Act, 1933, interact with the general "freeze" on legal actions mentioned in Section 4?

26PreviousSection 26 Power of State Government to make orders.28NextSection 28 Power to make rules.

←Section 26 Section 28→