Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.17 seconds)

Kamireddi Timmappa vs Devasi Harpal Trading As Ratilal Khimji ... on 25 October, 1928

10. The jurisdiction of the insolvency Court does not terminate even on the approval of a composition or scheme. Though the adjudication is annulled, the composition is made with the approval of the insolvency Court and the Court retains jurisdiction to give effect to it: Re Krishna Kishore Adhikary . The proceedings in insolvency do not terminate even on the annulment of adjudication on the approval of a composition or scheme : Kamireddi v. Devasi Harpal ('29) 16 AIR 1929 Mad 157. The effect of the approval of a scheme is to substitute the scheme for the bankruptcy. The scheme remains under the control of the insolvency Court. Under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act the payment of any instalment due under a composition may be enforced by an application to the Court: (Section 30(2)). The above short sketch of the provisions of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act relating to a composition or scheme makes it amply clear that the proceeding for a composition or scheme is in relation to the insolvency proceeding itself. The fact that the initiation of the proceeding is required to be before the Official Assignee whose primary function is administrative does not in the least affect its relation to the main proceeding. From its initiation before the Official Assignee to its approval by the Court, the whole thing is in relation to the insolvency proceeding and any offence alleged to have been committed in this proceeding is, in our judgment, committed in relation to the insolvency proceeding. This insolvency proceeding admittedly being a proceeding in a Court within the meaning of Section 195(1)(b), Criminal P.C., it follows that the offence alleged in the present case must be taken as "alleged to have been committed in relation to a proceeding in a Court" within the meaning of Section 195(1)(b), Criminal P.C., and, consequently, in the absence of any complaint in writing of that Court, the Magistrate was debarred from taking cognizance of the same.
Madras High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Indra Chandra Narang And Ors. vs Emperor on 25 January, 1929

In our opinion this case has no application to the case before us. The proceeding for a composition or scheme is, in our opinion, in relation to the original insolvency proceeding and in order to bring it into this relation with the original proceeding it is not necessary that it should be carried up to the Court. Without anything more such a proceeding before the Official Assignee is one in relation to the original insolvency proceeding and consequently an offence under Section 200 read with Section 199, Penal Code, alleged to have been committed in course of this proceeding is hit by the provisions of Section 195 (1)(b), Criminal P.C. The rule is accordingly made absolute and the proceedings under Section 200, Penal Code, pending in the Court of Mr. H.K. De, Fourth Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, against the petitioner are quashed. Let the petitioner be discharged from the bail bond.
Patna High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

W.A. Beardsell And Co. (By Their Agent, ... vs Nilgiri Abdul Gunni Sahib And Anr. on 4 April, 1912

But the true character of the acceptance by the creditors under Section 28(2) is that it is merely a resolution to entertain the proposal as one deserving of consideration. The very creditor who might have voted for the acceptance of the proposal may oppose its approval by the Court and this is expressly so provided in Section 29(2) of the Act. In our judgment, therefore, in accepting or rejecting the proof of debt for the purpose of Section 28(2) the Official Assignee does only discharge his function as the Chairman of the meeting. He is therefore not a Court within the meaning of Section 195(1)(b), Criminal P.C. This view finds support in Beardsell & Co. v. Nilgiri Abdul Gunni Saheb ('14) AIR 1914 Mad 474.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1