Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (1.03 seconds)The Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Presidency-towns Insolvency Act, 1909
M.A. Jaleel Sahib vs Seeniappa Ramaswami Mudaliar And Co., ... on 5 September, 1950
7. The very reasoning adopted by the learned Judge supports the view taken in the other Bench decisions of the Madras High Court that the powers vested in the Civil Court cannot be exercised where a specific remedy is provided under the Act; but where no such specific remedy is available to an aggrieved person within the four corners of the Act, he can have resort to the general powers of the Civil Court. This broad ground of distinction was reiterated by Mr. Justice Chandra Reddy (as he then was) in Jaleel Sahib v. Ramaswami Mudaliar, . There the learned Judge observed:
Section 10 in The Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 [Entire Act]
Section 43 in The Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 [Entire Act]
C. Venugopalachariar vs K. Chinnulal Sowcar And Ors. on 10 February, 1926
6. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the decision of Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Venugopalachariar v. Chinnulal Sowcar, 51 Mad LJ 209: (AIR 1926 Mad 942). There the learned Judges had to consider whether having regard to the provisions of Section 5, read with Section 10(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, a debtor, whose application had been dismissed by reason of his absence was entitled to apply for review of the order of annulment. The. Division Bench held that Section 5 had to be read alone with Section 10(2) and as the insolvent, had a right to apply afresh, he was not entitled to make the application. The basis of the rule laid down in 51 Mad LI 209: (AIR 1926 Mad 942) can be explained. Section 5 specifically provides that the general power vested in the Insolvency Court to exercise the same jurisdiction as is vested in a Civil Court is subject to an important qualification, namely, that it has to be exercised subject to the provisions of the Act. Where, therefore, there is a specific provision provided elsewhere in the Act, the Civil Court cannot exercise its power of review. The following observations made therein bring out this distinction.
Ayyasami Chetty vs The Official Receiver on 13 July, 1931
The same view was taken by Anantakrishna Aiyar, J., in Ayyasami Chetty v. Official Receiver, Coimbatore, 61 Mad LJ 719: (AIR 1932 Mad 63) where it was held that "mofussil courts in the exercise of insolvency jurisdiction have, by virtue of Section 5 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, the right of review and the right to entertain an application under Order 9, Civil Procedure Code, to set aside for sufficient cause, orders passed ex parte".
Pasumarti Satyanarayana Rao And Anr. vs The Official Receiver Of West Godavari ... on 3 September, 1947
Reference may here be made to the latest of the decisions of the Madras High Court in Satyanarayana Rao v. Official Receiver of West Godavari, 1947-2 Mad LJ 425: (AIR 1948 Mad 233) where a Division Bench, consisting of Bell and Govindarajachari, JJ. has held that a Court acting under the Provincial Insolvency Act has power to review its orders.