Holding

The Debt Relief Scheme’s liberal interpretation includes agricultural‑related activities such as dairy and livestock, so the lower courts were correct in granting loan waivers and the appeals are dismissed.

Summary

The borrowers, residing in Jammu & Kashmir, had taken small loans (mostly under Rs 10,000) from Jammu Rural Bank and Jammu & Kashmir Bank to purchase sheep and buffaloes and to set up dairy units. While suits for recovery were pending, the Government of India introduced a Debt Relief Scheme waiving eligible loans up to Rs 50,000 for borrowers engaged in "business activities" in the state, primarily to aid those affected by militancy. The lower courts held that the agricultural‑related activities of the borrowers fell within the scheme’s ambit and dismissed the banks' recovery suits. The banks appealed, arguing that the scheme covered only trade‑related activities and that relief could not be granted without a specific plea from the borrowers. The Supreme Court examined the scheme’s language, noting the examples given and the catch‑all "etc.", and concluded that the scheme’s purpose was to assist indebted borrowers, including those engaged in agriculture‑linked businesses, and that the lower courts were justified in granting the waiver. It also observed that the reimbursement provision under Section 3(a) allowed banks to claim the waived amounts, and therefore the appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether loans taken for purchase of sheep, buffaloes and establishment of dairy units qualify as "business activity" under the Debt Relief Scheme.
Whether courts may grant relief under the Scheme in the absence of a specific written plea by the borrowers.
Whether the reimbursement clause of the Scheme affects the banks' right to recover the waived amounts.

Subjects

Debt Relief SchemeJammu & Kashmirbank loan waiverbusiness activityagricultural allied activitymilitancyreimbursementcivil procedureliberal interpretation

Judgment

[2008] 12 S.C.R. 1035

-i JAMMU RURAL BANK A
v.
MOHD. DIN AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4817-4851 of 2002)
AUGUST 29, 2008 '
8,
...... [P. SATHASIVAM AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.]
.
Bank/Banking - Loan waiver scheme - Indebtedness
and inability of Respondent-borrowers in the State of Jammu
and Kashmir to repay loan amount due to continuous militant c
activities in the State - Amounts borrowed less than Rs.
10, 0001- - Debt Relief Scheme floated by Government for
borrowers in the State - Scheme provided for waiver of bank
Joans upto Rs.50,0001- - Liberal interpretation of the scheme
by Courts below and consequent dismissal of suits filed by
D
l"
Appellant-banks against Respondent-borrowers - Justification
of - Held: Justified, considering the peculiar facts and
"" circumstances of the case and in light of the vari0us clauses
in the Scheme itself and also in view of the fact that sub-
clause (a) of Section 3 of the scheme provided for
reimbursement of waived Joan to the concerned banks. E

Respondents belong to the State of Jammu &
Kashmir~ They obtained loans upto Rs.10,000/- from
Appellant-Banks for rearing of sheep and buffaloes and
for establishing dairy units. The loans remained unpaid F
·-\.
• on which, the Appellant-baR=ks filed suits against the
Respondents. During pendency of the s_aid suits, the
Government framed a Debt Relief Scheme for bo.rrowers
in the State of Jammu & Kashmir to give them r~lief
considering the continued militancy and other difficulties
G
in the State during the relevanttime. The scheme provi~ed
for waiver of bank loans taken by borrowers in the State
upto Rs.50,000/- for purpose of their business activities.
Taking suo motu notice of the said Scheme, the
1035 H
1036 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 12 S.C.R.
I
~-
}
A Courts below held that the loans obtained by
Respondents could be presumed to be for trade purpose
and after applying the said scheme, dismissed the suits
filed by Respondents.
The questions which arose for consideration in the
B present appeals were as to i) whether the loan obtained
by Respondents for purchasing sheep and buffalos and
for establishing dairy units was covered by the said
Scheme and ii) whether, in absence of a specific plea by
the Respondents, the High Court was justified in granting
\
C relief in terms of the said Scheme.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELb:1.1. The Debt Relief Scheme in question
applies to borrowers in the State of Jammu & Kashmir
D who borrowed loan amount for the purpose of their
business activities. Business activities have not been
specifically defined in the scheme. Sub-clause (i) of clause
2(d) of the Scheme refers certain examples viz., tourism,
transport, small scale industry, trade sector, hotel, house-
E boat business, retail trade, etc .. Though purchase of
buffalos and sheep relates to agriculture and allied
activities, it cannot be denied that from the buffalos, the )

borrower can establish a dairy unit and earn from the
said business. In view of clause 2(d)(i), the word "etc." in
F the definition of "eligible loans" connotes that besides
the activities cited as example for business activity there
are other business activities which could be included
under the Scheme. The s~id liberal interpretation cannot
l:>e ruled out particularly, when the Debt Relief Scheme
G was introduced mainly as a relief to the borrowers in the
militant dominated State during the relevant time.
Following the very reason for introduction of the said
.Scheme i.e. to offer financial help to the poor and ir.debted
borrowers of militancy hit Jammu & Kashmir, the Courts
H below rightly concluded that the agricultural and allied
JAMMU RURAL BANK v. MOHD. DIN AND ORS. 1037

........{ business activities viz., the types of trade/business which A
are substantially or partially depending on agriculture and/
or agricultural produce as a business activity under the
said Scheme. Further, the Reserve Bank of India
Guidelines cannot be strictly followed as it has not been
mentioned to be followed in the Scheme and, therefore, 8,
the term 'business activity' cannot be interpreted under
the strict rule of interpretation. [Paras 9, 10, 13] [1045,C-
D; 1045,E-G; 1047,D-E]
1.2. Besides, sub-clause (a) of Section 3 of the
Scheme makes it clear that the amount waived off will be c
reimbursed to the concerned Bank/Financial Institution
by the Department of Jammu & Kashmir Affairs,
Government of India on recommendation of the
Committee to be set up at the State Level. Even after the
orders passed· by the sub-Court and thereafter by the
0
District Court, the Banks could have availed the benefit
of reimbursement as provided under clause 3(a) of the
Scheme. However, the appellant-Banks instead of
availing the same, agitated the matter up to the level of
this Court by spending more money for recovery of petty
amounts from the small borrowers. The appellant-Banks E
are free to approach the Department of Jammu & Kashmir
Affairs, Government of India who brought the Debt Relief
Scheme, under clause 3(a) for reimbursement, if the same
is permissible, at this juncture for which no opinion is
expressed by this Court. [Para 14] [1047,H; 1048,A-C] F
2. As regards the contention that in absence of a
specific plea in the form of written statement or counter
affidavit, the Court should not have given relief applying
the said scheme, it is true that all the respondents were
served by publication in the daily newspapers and in most G
of the cases, the amount borrowed was less than
Rs.10,000/-, which may be one of the reason, the
respondents failed to contest the suit. In those
circumstances when the Government of India itself with
the assistance of the State of Jammu ~1 Kashmir brought H
1038 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A a' Sch'em€f called "De Qt Relief Scheme" and the same was
iivailable on· tlie date when all the suits were pending,
c'ohsideririg the· special circumstances, the course
adbpted-by the Courts below cannot be faulted with. [Para
11f [1046,A-D] ., .
,..... ' : ,) ~ ; .
B · ·--· - ' 3. Considering all the peculiar aspects of the present
ca~e, p~rticularly, indebtedness and inability to repay the
loan amount by the borrowers due to continuous militant
activities
,_. 1J ., •
in the State- of
' ' - -
Jammu & -Kashmir particularly,
.
at
the relevant time~·the amounts borrowed which were less
C ttlan ·Rs. 10,000/- in' most'of the cases, liberal interpretation
of._tlle _Gou~,below in'the !i9tit of the various clauses in
the' Scheme itSelf and also of the fact that sub-clause (a)
-~ .. • l _.... ., I ' I I , • - .

'?f1 JS~.9~i~~ _3 :_of .the scheme, provides reimbursement of
waived loan.amounts,.this Court is not inclined to interfere
o ~i~h. ~~e~~rde~s.of tt~e ~ou~, beiow. [Para 15] [1048,D-E]
1
··- . 'CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
~8~~~.~~~! of 20,,~~-, '. ;~,.' _
., ,;:; , From Jhe final. Judgment and Order .dated 3.11.2000 of
E the ttigh .Court of J & K qt jammu in CSA Nos. 30, 44, 56, 50,
46,· 72;~74, 47, 55, 51, 71, 66, 45,_78,.61, 73, 49, 63, 62, 76,
53, 69, 64, 68, 57, 41, 67, 65, 43, 42, 58;_ 54, 52, 48 & 40 of
1999 ,'

\ .
. Y\'ITH
F
.
C.A.
:~ !. '
Nos. 4852-4854 of 2002 & 5315 of 2008
:< • .' I . ' " t l :•
,>--
~
1

1
"; · • Raju.Ramachandran, G. M. Kawoosa and N. Ganpathy for
· •

the Appellant.· · : 1. !
'... ~ i ..... $ ~ ~ .. I {-~ .~ • ~ . ' !. • ' i . I

G "" ._. -, S. Mehdi Imam and~nis ~uhrawa~dyfofthe Re·spondents.
-·,_._, -i.' The Judgment'ofthe Court was delivered-by. +--
: ... P. SATHA~IVAM, J . 1. Civil Appeal ~os. 4817-4851 of
.2002;,by special leave, are directed against the final judgm~nt
H ;and.order
, -. dated-3.11.2000 passed by the High Court of Jan-1mu
.

.,
.......

JAMMU RURAL BANK v. MOHD. DIN AND ORS. 1039
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
.__.,..
and Kashmir at Jammu in CSA Nos. 30, 44, 56, 50, 46, 72, 74, A
47, 55, 51, 71, 66, 45, 78, 61, 73,49, 63, 62, 76,53, 69,64,
68, 57, 41, 67, 65, 43, 42, 58, 54°, 52, 48 and 40of1999 and
Civil Appeal Nos. 4852-4854 of 2002 are directed against
CSA Nos. 34, 35 and 77 of 1999.
2. The facts in Civil Appeal Nos. 4817-4851 of 2002 and B
f Civil Appeal Nos. 4852-4854 of 2002 are as follows:
The respondents, in these appeals, borrowed loans
ranging from Rs.3000/- to 10,000/- in most of the cases and in
some cases it ranges from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.20,000/- from the c
Jammu Rural Bank and Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. for different
purposes. The loans remained unpaid and as a result, Banks
filed suits against the respondents herein before sub-Judge,
Rajouri. On 26.5.1997, Debt Relief Scheme for the borrowers
in the State of Jammu and Kashmir was introduced by the
D
Government of India, Ministry of Finance, vide No. F.11 (08)/96-
)\,
CP for waiver of eligible loans taken from banks, financial
~' institutions etc. by the borrowers up to and inclusive of
Rs.50,000/- as on 30.6.1996 for their business activity, for
example, tourism, transport, small scale industry, trade sector,
hotel, houseboat business, retail trade etc. The said scheme E
provides for reimbursement of the amount waived off by the
banks, financial institutions etc. disbursed till 30th of June, 1996,
by the Department of Jammu and Kashmir Affairs, Government
of India. On 29.5.1997, letter No.FD-VII-CS/ Package/96
(Ann.P-2 in S.L.P.4852-4854 of 2002) was sent by the Director, F
,-.!,
_.
Public Sector Undertakings, Finance Department, Government
of Jammu &Kashmir to the Chairman, Jam mu & Kashmir Bank
for implementation of the said Relief Scheme. On 24.3.1999,
on the basis of the Debt Relief Scheme introduced by the
Government of India and followed by the State of Jammu & G
-+ Kashmir, sub-Judge, Rajouri, while taking suo motu notice of
the aforementioned relief scheme-held that the loans advanced
to the respondents was for the purpose of establishing the
dairy units as well as rearing of sheep and buffalos and the
same could be presumed to be a trade and by applying the H
1040 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 12 S.C.R.

A said relief scheme, dismissed all the suits. Aggrieved by the ·;..-- .
said judgment, the Banks filed the first appeals before the District
Judge, Rajouri and the same were also dismissed. Against the
said judgment, the Banks filed second appeal before the High
Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu.
B 3. By a common judgment dated 3.11.2000, the High Court
after finding that the Debt Relief Scheme announced by the -~--

Government of India was applicable to the loans borrowed by
the respondents, dismissed all the second appeals filed by the
Banks. Questioning the said order, the Banks have filed Civil
c Appeal Nos. 4817-4851 of 2002 and Civil Appeal Nos. 4852-
4854 of 2002.
4. Leave granted in S.L.P.(C) No. 4901 of 2006.
5. In this appeal, when the Jammu & Kashmir Bar~k filed
D execution petition before the District Judge against a borrower,
the District Judge, taking note of the Debt Relief Scheme applied :y
the said Scheme and dismissed the execution petition by order
dated 4.4.2002. Challenging the said order, the Jammu & '*
Kashmir Bank Ltd. filed Civil Revision Petition No. 77 of 2002
E before the High Court and the same was dismissed on
20.5.2003. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant-
Bank filed Review Petition (C) No. 8 of 2005 before the High
Court contending that agricultural matters are not included within
the Debt Relief Scheme as communicated by the Reserve Bank
F of India. The High Court dismissed the same by an order dated )·-.
16.9.2005. Against the abovementioned orders in civil revision ...
petition and the review petition respectively, the appellant-Bank
has filed this appeal.
6. Since one and only issue in all these cases relates to
G applicability of Debt Relief Scheme of the Government of India,
we dispose of the same by the following common order. +-
).

;
7, Heard Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellant-Banks.

H
JAMMU RURAL BANK v. MOHD. DIN AND ORS. 1041
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

8. Prior to 1996, the respondents borrowed loans from A
the appellant-Banks. The said loans were advanced to them to
purchase sheep and buffalos, establish dairy units or for hob
cultivation. Except few, most of the loans advanced was below
Rs.10,000/-. Since the loanees did not repay the loan amount,
the Banks filed regular suits in sub-Court, Rajouri. During the B
-j.. pendency of these suits, considering the continued militancy
and other difficulties, the Government of India framed a Scheme
giving relief to the borrowers from the Banks, Financial
Institutions etc.In all these cases, we have to decide,
(i) Whether the loans obtained by the respondents for C
purchasing of sheep and buffalos, establishing dairy
units etc. were covered by the Scheme; and
(ii) In the absence of specific plea by the respondents-
loanees whether the Court is justified in granting relief D
in terms of the Scheme.
~ In order to find out the answer for the above points, it is
useful to refer the communication of the Government of India,
Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs addressed
to all the Banks of the Jammu & Kashmir Region. The said E
communication (Annexure P-1) reads as under:
"No. F.11(08)/96-CP
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Economic Affairs F
(Banking Division)

Jeevan Deep Building, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi, the 25th ~ay, 1997
G
The Chairman,
IDBl/ICICl/IFCI

The Chairman/Managing Director,
(All Scheduled Commercial Banks)
H
1042 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A The Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd.
Srinagar
Subject : - Debt Relief Scheme for the Borrowers
In the State of Jammu & Kashmir
Dear Sir,
B
I am directed to say that it has been decided to extend relief ,~
by way of write off of eligible loans taken from banks/financial
institutions up to and inclusive of Rs.50,000/- as principal, together
with outstanding interest, in the case of borrowers in the State of
C Jammu & Kashmir only who suffered on account of militancy in the
State. Accordingly, a Scheme known as "Debt Relief Scheme for
the Borrowers in the State of Jammu & Kashmir" has been prepared
and a copy thereof is enclosed for your information and nec~ssary
action. The Scheme will come into force with immediate effect.
2. The contents of the Scheme are self explanatory.
D
In case there are any points that requir~ clarification,
suitable references may be made to this Division
immediately. It may please be noted that no application
from the eligible borrowers is necessary for providing
relief under the Scheme; You are advised to implement
E
the Scheme immediately by issuing suitable
administrative instructions to your Branches/Offices.
3. It may be clarified here that under this Scheme only
commercial loans/credit limits up to and inclusive of
Rs.50,000/- as principal granted by Banks/Financial
F Institutions to the borrowers in the State of Jammu &
Kashmir for their business activity viz., tourism,
transport, small scale industry, trade sector, hotel, house
boat, business, retail trade, etc., are eligible for relief.
However, loans/credit limits granted against banks' own
G deposits or any other deposit, National Savings
Certificates, Government Securities, Shares and
Debentures, Mutual Funds, UC policies, etc. and/or loans
for purchase of any consumer durables etc. will not be
eligible for any relief under the Scheme.
H 4. Under the Scheme, the borrower is reguired to be
JAMMU RURAL BANK v. 'MOHD. DIN AND ORS. 1043
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
'---I
advi·:;ed in writing by the qank/financial institution A
concerned about the extent of relief provided in each
account. A proforma in which the borrower may be
advised is enclosed with the Scheme for your information
and necessary action.
5. In terms of paragraph 5 of the Scheme, banks/financial B
~ institutions are required to submit a detailed claim
statement sector-wise/borrower-wise as per proforma
'/:\ enclosed with the Scheme. The claim statement
should be signed by an officer not below the rank of
General Manager in case of Jammu & Kashmir State
Financial Corporation/Jammu * Kashmir Bank Ltd. and
c
Chief State Level Officer i.e. Regional/Zonal/Divisional
Manager in respect of other banks/financial institutions.
The claims on the prescribed proforma may be lodged
by banks/financial institutions to the Director(Finance),
State Department of Finance, Government of Jammu & D
'-;..._
Kashmir, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar. The last date for
submissions of the claim shall be 301h September, 1997 .
•
6. Necessary steps for speedy implementation of the
... Scheme may please be initiated at your and the relief
under the Scheme be provided expeditiously. l
Yours faithfully.
Sd/-
I (G.R. Summan)
'
Deputy Secretary to the Government of India~
A, F
" The appellant-Banks have also placed the Scheme called
"Debt Relief Scheme for the borrowers in the State of Jammu
& Kashmir". The perusal of the communication of the
Government of India, Ministry of Finance as well as the Scheme
shows that the main purpose of the Scheme was to give relief
G
to the militancy hit borrowers of the State of Jam mu & Kashmir.
As per the Scheme, loans which have been sanctioned for
business activities, namely, tourism, transport, small scale
industry, trade sector, hotel, house boat business, retail trade
etc. and which were existing in the books of accounts as on
H
... ,,_

,_
1044 SUPREME COURT F\EPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A 30.6.1996 have been waived off with immediate effect. For )---
applicability of the said Scheme, three conditions have to be
fulfilled:
(i) The loan should be existing as on 30.6.1996 in the
books of accounts.
B
(ii) It should not exceed Rs.50,000/-.
,{-
(iii) The loan should have been advanced for any of the
purposes referred above.

c If these three conditions are fulfilled, the loan is deemed
to have been waived off. Though the respondent-defendants
did not contest the suit by filing written statements, it is not in
dispute that those loans were kept pending and shown in the
books of accounts of the Banks as on 30.6.1996. It is also not
in dispute that the amount borrowed has exceeded Rs.50,000/
D
-. In fact, most of the loan amounts were below Rs.10,000/-.
However, the strong objection of the appellant-Banks before /(

the Courts below as well as in this Court is regarding the purpose
of the loan i.e. the Scheme was intended to give relief to the
• \
>
traders for business activities and herein the respondents t._
E '
borrowed loans for purchase of sheep and buffalos, establishing
dairy units etc. which are alike to agricultu1e and are not eligible
to avail of the Debt Relief Scheme. Clause 2(d) of the Debt
Relief Scheme speaks about the "Eligible Loans". The following
Ii-
sub~ciauses of clauses 2(d) are relevant: )
F
"2(d)(i) Fresh loans/credit limits upto and inclusive of /«
~-
Rs.50,000/- as principal granted by banks/financial institutions
and disbursed upto and outstanding as on the effective date
i.e. 30th June, 1996 to the borrowers in the State of Jammu
& Kashmir for the purpose of their business activity for example
G tourism, transport, small scale industry, trade sector, hotel,
house-boat business, retail trade, etc. .)<--

(ii) Short term loans/credit limits which were converted into
term loans upto and inclusive of R<::..50,000/- granted to
the borrowers in the State of Jamrnu & Kashmir as the
H
JAMMU RURAL BANK v. MOHD. DIN AND ORS. 1045
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
"'---{
short term loans, credit limits became irregular as a result A
of loss of stocks/assets due to militancy in the State.
(iii) Eligible loans mentioned at i) and ii) above should be
outstanding in books of accounts of banks/financial
institutions as on the effective date i.e. 30th June, 1996.
In other words, the accounts which already stand closed 8
-1- on or before 30th June, 1996 would not qualify for any
relief under the Scheme."
9. It is true that the Scheme applies to the borrowers in the
State of Jammu & Kashmir who borrowed loan amount for the
purpose of their business activities. As rightly observed by the c
Courts below, business activities have not been specifically
defined. On the other hand, sub-clause(i) of clause 2(d) refers
certain examples viz., tourism, transport, small scale industry,
trade sector, hotel, house-boat business, retail trade, etc.
D
):,; 10. Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel.•
appearing for the Banks, argued that the loan, advanced for
• such purposes, namely, purchase of sheep and buffalos, am:!
running of dairy unit etc. being agriculture loan, does not fal'!
within the purview of the Scheme as such loan cannot be waived
E
off under the Scheme. The very same submission was pressed
into service before the sub-Court, Rajouri as well as before the
District Court. Though purchase of buffalos and sheep related
to agriculture and allied activities 1 it cannot be denied that from.
,J
the buffalos, the borrower can establish a dairy unit and earn
-~ from the said business. As rightly pointed out by the Courts· F
below, in view of clause 2(d)(i), the word "etc." in the definition.
of "Eligible Loans" connotes that besides the activities cited as.
example for business activity there are other business activities·
which could be included under the Scheme. The said liberal
d interpretation cannot be ruled out particularly, the Debt Relief. G
Scheme was introduced mainly as a relief to the borrowers.·
(emphasis supplied) in the militant dominated State during the
rele\'ant time. In the light of the intention of the Government,
object of the Scheme, namely, to help the borrowers who were .
indebted and unable to repay, we are unable to accept the · H
1046 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A stand taken by the appellant-Banks and concur with the liberal
interpretation of the Courts below.
11. Learned senior counsel further contended that in the
absence of specific plea in the form of written statement or
counter affidavit, the Court should not have given such relief
B applying the Scheme. As observed earlier, it is true that all the
respondents were served by publication in the daily newspapers.
We have already. referred to the fact that in most of the cases
amount borrowed was less than Rs.10,000/-, that may be one
of the reasons, the respondents failed to contest the suit. In
C those circumstances when the Government of ln9i~ itself Vt{i_th
the assistance of the State of Jammu .& Kas~mir broughi a
Scheme called "Debt Relief Scheme" .and the same was
available on the date when all, the. suits .\/Vere_,p~~ding,
considering the special ci'rcumstances, we ar~.of the view, that
D the course adopted by the Courts below cannot be faulted with.
Though such~ ~ecourse· is alien'to the civil proceedings~ in view
of ttie pecL1liar f~cts and' circumstances as"'rioted in the idan
waive} schem'e and th'e other reasorismentioned in the
par~graphs ?Upra which were noted.by the Courts below, we
E . ar~.. riqt !)1cli~ed to interfere in these ~ppeals. · · ' · ...
'~ ' ! ' ,. , I • I •\_, • j
, '

. · · •.12: Regarding .the order dated 28,9.2000 p~ssed by the
High Court in GivilHevision Na.,•.165 of 19~99., it is trlje th~t while
·considering' the civil revision,.petition ~filed· against the order
passed· by the executing Court,· the High Court relying on the
.F : prdvisions in. the:. Hand Book of instructions. issued. by. the
Reserve Bank of India that the activities i.e.,:dairying and.rearing
;. of sheep are.allied to agriculture and, therefor~, excluded from
the scheme, ·quashed the order of the_.trjal Court.an<~ dire~ted
-the executing Court to restore to its original number ~m~ proce~d
' G · with·thennatter in-accordance with law. Learned senior cou[!Sel,
by pointing :out the above said order of ·the very same High
Court; submnted.thatthe sa;dorder passed in.th~ civil revision
petition is in consonance with the Scheme· and prayed for sirQilar
· order in all the 1other 'appeals. For the reasons stated in: the
·- H -.·earlier paragraphs with regard to the Civi1Appeals481:?-4851/
JAMMU RURAL BANK v. MOHD. DIN AND ORS. 1047
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
._--t 2002 and Civil Appeal Nos. 4852-4854 of 2002, we are not A
.
.
,
inclined to accept the same. In view of the peculiar position as
explained by both the Courts below and considering the fact
-:\
that the amounts involved are less than Rs.10,000/- in most of
the cases and those loans were advanced prior to 1996 during
the prevalence of militancy in the State of Jammu & Kashmir, B
we are not inclined to interfere with any of the reliefs granted by
-},
the Courts below.
13. In the light of the above discussion, we conclude the
above-mentioned questions as under:
c
In the Debt Relief Scheme issued by the Government of
India, the very definition of 'business activity' has nowhere been
defined exhaustively but only a few examples are mentioned
which can be extended up to a number of other activities which
have not explicitly mentioned for the term 'etc.' which has been
D
used in the Scheme. Following the very reason for introduction
).:_
of the said Scheme i.e. to offer financial help to the poor and
» indebted borrowers of militancy hit Jammu & Kashmir, the courts
below rightly concluded that the agricultural and allied business
activities viz., the types of trade/business which are substantially
or partially depending on agriculture and/or agricultural produce E
as a business activity under the said Scheme. Further, the
Reserve Bank of India Guidelines cannot be strictly followed as
it has not been mentioned to be followed in the Scheme and,
therefore, we should not interpret the term 'business activity'
under the strict rule of interpretation.,Accordingly, we approve F
'\ . the conclusion and the ultimate decision of courts below granting
relief to the respondents. Though the course adopted by the
sub-judge, Rajouri or the District Judge were not acceptable,
.
-. in view of our conclusion on the merits of the orders passed,
the dismissal of execution petitions should not be set aside G
;i only due to procedural irregularities.
14. Apart from these aspects, it is pertinent to mention
that sub-clause (a) of Section 3 of the Notification makes it
clear that the amount waived off will be reimbursed to the
H
1048 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A concerned Bank/Financial Institution by the Department of
Jammu & Kashmir Affairs, Government of India on
recommendation of the Committee to be set up at the State
Level. Even after the orders passed by the sub-Court and
thereafter by the District Court, the Banks could have availed·
B the benefit of reimbursement as provided under clause 3(a) of .,.
l
the Scheme. Unfortunately, the appellant-Banks instead of
availing the same, agitated the matter up to the level of this
Court by spending more money for recovery of petty amounts
from the small borrowers. The appellant-Banks are free to
c approach the Department of Jammu & Kashmir Affairs,
Government of India who brought the Debt Relief Scheme, under
clause 3(a) for reimbursement,. if the same is permissible, at
this juncture for which we express no opinion.
15. Considering all these peculiar aspects, particularly,
D indebtedness and inability to repay the loan amount by the
borrowers due to continuous militant activities in the State of
Jammu & Kashmir particularly, at the relevant time, the amounts
borrowed which were less than Rs. 10,000/- in most of the
cases, liberal interpr~tation of the Courts below in the light of
E the various clauses in the Scheme itself and also of the fact that
sub-clause (a) of Section 3 of the scheme provides
reimbursement of waived loan amounts, we are not inclined to
interfere with the orders of the Courts below. Consequently, all
the appeals fail and are, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
F B.B.B. Appeals dismissed.