PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 43
are rich enough to engage these lawyers and get things done in their own way. I wish to suggest that the benefit of this Act should not be extended at all to these managers and it should not be given retrospective effect. This amendment may be passed but we should take care to see that the Law Minister comes forward at an early date with a suitable amendment in order to protect the interests of the sons also as against the vagaries of their own fathers.
- Shri Biswanath Das : I have nothing to say about this particular Bill. In fact I have clearly stated that if the House comes to the conclusion that the Insolvency Act as it should stand then this Bill is a natural corollary to it. There is no denying that fact. Therefore, I have nothing more to say in the matter.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Amebkar: Mr. Speaker, Sir, I will begin with my answer to the point made by my friend who spoke last. If I understood him correctly his points were two. One was that this was purely a provincial matter and ought therefore, to be left to the Provincial Legislatures.
Shri Biswanath Das : May I interrupt ‘my honourable Friend, Sir ? I stated clearly that it is in the Concurrent List and that as such the Central Government should have left it to the Provincial Government and the Provincial Legislatures. I know it is in the Concurrent List.”
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I was just going to say that. The reason why it was put in the Concurrent list is undoubtedly—and I do not think there can be any other reason—that in a matter of this sort there ought to be uniformity if the Centre decided there should be uniformity. Therefore it is the right of the Central Legislature to legislate on the subject.
With regard to the question whether there should be an Insolvency Act or not I do not think that that can be point at issue on a matter of this sort. If my honourable Friend wants that there should be no insolvency legislation at all
- C.A. (Leg.) D., Vol. II, 25th February 1948, p. 1227-28.