Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.21 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 28 in The Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 [Entire Act]
Section 73 in The Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 [Entire Act]
Article 182 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
S. Hari Rao vs The Official Assignee, High Court, ... on 18 January, 1936
7. The learned Counsel for the respondent cited Bhagwan Das v. Amritsar National Bank (1928) 111 I.C. 462 and Hari Rao v. Official Assignee of Madras (1926) 50 M.L.J. 358 : I.L.R. 49 Mad. 461 (F.B.), before me in support of the proposition that an insolvent had no right to file an appeal after his adjudication. The first of these is a single Bench decision of the Lahore High Court in which it was held that a judgment-debtor had no locus standi to file an appeal from an order in execution proceedings after he had been declared an insolvent and that the proper person to appeal would be the. Official Receiver in such a case. The decision in the second case cited is a Full Bench decision of this Court in which an insolvent was held not to be an "aggrieved person" in the sense in which those words were held to have been used in Section 8(2) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act (III of 1909) and was therefore held to be incompetent to appeal. It could be noticed that in this case the contest was really between the Official Assignee and the insolvent in whom his estate had vested and a learned Judge of this Court had, while sitting on the Original Side, passed an order in the exercise of the insolvency jurisdiction rejecting his objection to a sale of a part of his estate by the former, that is, the Official Assignee on the ground that the sale was prejudicial to the latter, that, is, the insolvent. It would thus be seen that both these decisions were given under the Insolvency Acts (Provincial and Presidency Towns) and did not consider the insolvent's right to present an appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure.
The Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920
Subbaraya Goundan And Anr. vs V.V.R. Virappa Chettiar Bank And Its ... on 11 April, 1933
In fact in a later Full Bench decision of this Court reported in Subbaraya Goundan v. Virappa Chettiar Bank (1933) 65 M.L.J. 719 : I.L.R. 57 Mad. 89 (F.B.), this distinction was pointed out by the learned Judges constituting that Bench who also decided that an insolvent would have a right to prefer an appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure against an order dismissing an application put in by him under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, in course of an execution of a decree passed against him.
Sri Krishna Doss vs Chandook Chand on 4 December, 1908
372, Subramaniam Chetty v. Ramaswami Chetty (1925) 49 M.L.J. 753, Sri Krishna Doss v. Chandook Chand (1908) 19 M.L.J. 307 : I.L.R. 32 Mad.
Sundaram Alias Mytheenbibi vs Mamsa Mavuthar, Sheikkasim Mavuthar on 22 February, 1921
334 and Sundaram v. Mamsa Mavuthar (1921) 40 M.L.J. 497 : I.L.R. 44 Mad. 554 (F.B.). I am of the opinion that a revision is competent. It was in the end suggested that as a civil suit would be competent, this Court should not interfere in revision. It is true, that ordinarily the Courts would not do so and leave the parties to pursue their remedies in Civil Courts, but when multiplicity of proceedings has to be avoided and the circumstances of the case justify an interference, it should not desist from doing so simply because another remedy is available. In my opinion, there are circumstances in this case which would justify me in invoking my revisional jurisdiction arid to set aside the order passed by the lower Court. I would therefore accept the revision and set aside the order. The revision is accepted with costs. The case will now go back to the District Munsiff who will proceed with the application according to law.