Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. A brief examination of the provisions of the English Bankruptcy Act bears out fully this position. Section 36 corresponds to Section 27(1) of the Bankruptcy Act of 1863. It is not necessary to refer to the later English Act in dealing with this subject. This section is more restrictive in its operation than the Indian Act. The English Act speaks of the admission of the party summoned as being "the basis of the summary decision. Section 7 of the Indian Act corresponds to Section 102 of the Bankruptcy Act of 1883. The proviso and the subsequent clauses of the latter section have no bearing in this country. The decisions under Section 102 hold that the Bankruptcy Court has jurisdiction to deal with the rights of third parties. Anderson, Ex parte, Anderson, In re (1870) 5 Ch. App. 473 : 39 L.J. Bk. 82 : 22 L.T. 361 : 18 W.R. 715; Halliday v. Harris (1874) 9 C.P. 668 : 43 L.J.C.P. 350 : 30 L.T. 680 : 22 W.R. 756 and Morley v. White White; In re (1872) 8 Ch. App. 244 : 42 L.J. BK. 76 : 27 L.T. 736 : 21 W.R. 746. As against these decisions the observations of Lord Selborne in Ellis v. Silber (1872) 8 Ch. App. 83 : 42 L.J. Ch. 666 : 28 L.T. 156 : 21 W.R. 346 relating to Section 72 of the repealed Bankruptcy Act were strongly relied on. These observations must not be understood as negativing the suggestion that the ordinary Courts should, under no circumstances, entertain a claim where the Bankruptcy, Court has seizin of the matter. The more guarded expression of opinion in Motion, In re, Mauley. Davis (1873) 9 Ch. App. 192 at.P. 210 : 43 L.J. Bk. 59 : 29 L.T. 757 : 22 W.R. 225 (Lord Selborne took part in this case also) bears out this view. See also Tait, Ex parte, Tait and Co., In re (1872) 13 Eq. 311 : 41 L.J. Bk. 32 : 20 W.R. 318. In my opinion, the distinction between the two classes of cases is this. Whereas what the. Lord Chancellor dealt with in Ellis v. Silber (1872) 8 Ch. App. 83 : 42 L.J. Ch. 666 : 28 L.T. 156 : 21 W.R. 346 referred to the contention that the Bankruptcy Court alone was competent to adjudicate upon the claims of third parties, Motion, In re, Maule v. Davis (1873) 9 Ch. App. 192 at.P. 210 : 43 L.J. Bk. 59 : 29 L.T. 757 : 22 W.R. 225 and the other cases relate to the discretion to be exercised by the Bankruptcy Court in directing the trustee to institute or defend in the ordinary Courts suits concerning the rights of third parties. Of course, in England, no question of the local jurisdiction of the High Court can arise. Applying the principle of these decisions in India, it can safely be said that whereas Section 7 gives jurisdiction over the property of the insolvent, wherever situate, Section 36 indicates that this jurisdiction should be exercised summarily only in certain cases and that in other cases all the formalities of a regular trial should be observed, although the forum will be the same in both cases.