Aiyya Pillay Vs. Vrithachellam Pillay

.....that the legislature intended that there would be automatic stay of recovery proceedings by bank under section 13(4) on filing an appeal by borrower under section 17. use of the expressions if and then under section 17 would not mean that the bank can take one or more measures laid down under section 13(4) only if the tribunal declares that the action taken already is in accordance with the provisions of the securitisation act and the rules made thereunder. use of the word if does not connote a condition precedent. it is a recognised rule of interpretation of statutes that expressions used therein should ordinarily be understood in a sense in which they harmonized with the object of the statute and which effectuate the object of the legislature. the provisions of section 17 must, therefore, receive such construction at the hands of the court as would advance the object and at any event not thwart it. in other words, the principle of purposive interpretation should be applied while construing the said provisions. the securitisation act is enacted to provide a speedy and summary remedy for recovery of thousands of crores which were due to the banks and financial institutions. order1. no one appears on either side. we are of opinion that the suit is cognizable by the small cause court. the only reason suggested by the subordinate judge for his contrary view is the fact that the plaintiff is a trustee; and that is clearly not a sufficient reason. vide sundaralingam chetti v. mariyappa chetty 26 m.k 200 and venkatachelapathy v. kanahasabapathi pillay 20 m.l.j. 146 : 5 ind. cas. 912 : 8 m.l.t. 67. these authorities support the view that the present case is not a suit relating to a trust within the meaning of article 18 of the second schedule of the provincial small cause courts act and is cognizable by the subordinate judge.2. we set aside the order of the subordinate judge and direct him to receive the plaint and dispose of the suit according to law.