Judgment :- 1. The short point arising for determination in this revision petition is whether the provisions of S.5 of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1958 regarding the calculation of interest are applicable to a debt due to a Banking Company in liquidation. 2. The revision petitioner prayed for the discharge of the amounts payable to the respondent, the Commonwealth Bank Ltd., (in Liquidation), under a bond executed by him on 30-7-1955. In the statement of accounts filed by him interest was calculated in accordance with S.5 of the Kerala Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as the Act. This was opposed by the respondent Bank, according to whom the provisions of the section are not applicable to a debt due to a Banking Company. The objection was met by the petitioner by contending that a Banking Company in liquidation is not a Banking Company as contemplated by the Act. Repelling the contention the learned judge held that S.5 of the Act will not-apply to the debt due to the respondent. 3. S.5 (1) (b) of the Banking Companies Act, 1949, defines Banking thus: "'Banking' means the accepting, for the purpose of lending or investment, of deposits of money from the public, repayable on demand or otherwise, and withdrawable by cheque, draft, order or otherwise." and S.5 (1) (c) says: "'Banking Company' means any company which transacts the business of Banking in India." The position taken up by Sri Sivasankara Panicker on behalf of the petitioner is that as a Banking Company which is in liquidation is not transacting the business of 'Banking' but was only concerned with the realisation and distribution of the assets, among the creditors it is not a Banking Company within the above definition. The position does not appear to be correct. The definition describes the nature of the business transacted in a Banking Company and it cannot be taken to mean that a company which was originally a banking company will cease to be one, or become one of a different category for the mere fact that proceedings have been started for the liquidation of the Company. 4. In K.V.S. Vassan Bros. v. Official Liquidator (AIR. 4. In K.V.S. Vassan Bros. v. Official Liquidator (AIR. 1952 Travancore-Cochin 170) the question whether a Banking Company in respect of which an order for winding up was passed would be a Banking Company within the meaning of S.5 clause (1) (c) of the Banking Companies Act came up for consideration and a Division Bench following the principles laid down in the earlier decisions of the Madras and Allahabad High Courts held that: "A Banking Company continues to exist even after proceedings are started for its liquidation until it is dissolved by the order of court under S.194, Companies Act and so long as it exists it retains its original character. The court dealing with an application for the winding up of a company is entitled to sanction a scheme for reconstruction which, if done, the company would continue to function. The mere fact that proceedings have been started for the liquidation of the Company, does not, therefore, mean that the company ceased to exist." The same view was taken in a later decision of the Court reported in Md. Rowther v. Travancore Central Banking Corporation Ltd (AIR. 1952 Travancore-Cochin 398) while dealing with the question whether S.6 of the Travancore-Debt Relief Act, II of 1116, applied to a Banking Company which was in liquidation on the date the Act came into force. It was held that: - "Where the proceedings in liquidation in respect of Banking Company had not progressed beyond an order for winding up on the date that the Debt Relief Act came into force, the banking company must be held to be a banking company within the meaning of the Act carrying on banking business on the date the Act came into force and therefore the provisions of S.6 are attracted." 5. A comparison of the wording of the Proviso to S.2(c)(xi) and S.22(1) will also indicate that the Bankinj Companies mentioned in the farmer will include Banking Companies in liquidation. While the former section uses the words 'Banking Companies as defined in the Banking Companies Act, 1949' the latter section specifies 'Banking Companies as defined in the Banking Companies Act, 1949, in liquidation". While the former section uses the words 'Banking Companies as defined in the Banking Companies Act, 1949' the latter section specifies 'Banking Companies as defined in the Banking Companies Act, 1949, in liquidation". Evidently the former provision was intended to safeguard the interests of Banking Companies in general by exempting debts due to Banking Companies from the concession given in S.5 regarding calculation of interest, while the latter provision which deals with setting aside of sale of property on deposit of money is made applicable only to Banking Companies in liquidation maybe as a measure to facilitate a quicker conversion of the assets of the Bank into cash. It seems tome that the qualifying words 'in liquidation' used in the latter section indicates that but for its use the words 'Banking Companies' will include all Banking Companies whether actively functioning or in liquidation. I am therefore inclined to hold that a Banking company as contemplated in the proviso to S.2(c)(xi) includes a banking company in liquidation. The order of the lower court is hence confirmed and this revision petition is dismissed with costs.