PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 39
Shri M. S. Aney (Deccan and Madras States Group) : May I know, whether, in view of the wording of the particular clause, just read out it if necessary that a motion for continuation should be made ? The rule permits the Government to continue the Bill and take it through further stages if it wants to do so. Is a separate motion for its continuation therefore necessary at all ?
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: If the motion for continuation is not made the Bill lapses. That means all the stages will have to be begun again.
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal: Muslim) : Sir, on this point of order the section which you were pleased to read says that a Bill which was pending in the Legislative Assembly ‘may be continued’. It is thus discretionary on the part of this House to continue or not to continue it. Therefore, a decision of the House is necessary.
Mr. Speaker : That is exactly why the motion is brought. The question is :
“That the Bill further to amend the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, be continued.”
The motion was adopted.
- The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Minister for Law): Mr. Speaker, Sir I move:
“That the Bill further to amend the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, be referred to a Select Committee consisting of Shri Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar; Dr. Bakshi Tek Chand, Shrimati G. Durgabai, Dr. P. S. Deshmukh, Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar, Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava, Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad, Shri Ram Sahai and the Mover, with instructions to report on or before the 16th March, 1948, and that the number of members whose presence shall be necessary to constitute a meeting of the Committee shall be five.”
Sir, in order to put the House in possession of the facts which have made it necessary for Government to introduce this measure I should like to make some preliminary
- C.A. (Leg.) D., Vol. II, 25th February 1948, pp. 1220-21