Andhra Pradesh High Court
A. GOPAL REDDY, J.
J. Gopalan - Appellant
Vs.
K Gopinadh and others - Respondent
CRP Nos.3732 and 4034 of 2007
Decided on: Twelfth Day of October, 2007
Revision Petitions - Insolvency Jurisdiction - The court held that the orders passed by the Court below, which is subordinate to the District Court, must be appealed to the District Court in the first instance. The High Court may only intervene for the purpose of satisfying itself that the order passed by the subordinate Court was according to law. The revision petitions were dismissed, granting the petitioner the liberty to avail the remedy of appeal as per law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed interlocutory applications to reopen the case for cross-examination of a witness and to examine a witness as a court witness. The orders impugned were passed by the Court in exercise of its insolvency jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that as per Section 75(1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, appeals against orders passed by the Court subordinate to the District Court must be made to the District Court in the first instance. The High Court may only intervene to ensure that the order passed by the subordinate Court was according to law.
Issues: The issues revolved around the jurisdiction for appeals against orders passed by the Court in insolvency matters and the hierarchy of courts for such appeals.
Ratio Decidendi: The key legal principle established was that in insolvency matters, appeals against orders passed by the Court subordinate to the District Court must be made to the District Court in the first instance, with the High Court intervening only to ensure the legality of the order.
Final Decision: The revision petitions were dismissed, granting the petitioner the liberty to avail the remedy of appeal as per law.
ORDER
A. Gopal Reddy, J.—These two revision petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are directed against the orders dated 4.7.2001 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor in I.A. Nos. 22 and 23 of 2007 in I.P. No. 23 of 2001 respectively.
2. The above two interlocutory applications were filed by the petitioner to reopen the case for the purpose of cross-examination of witness on behalf of the petitioner and for permitting him to examine the witness by name Kannan as court witness on behalf of the petitioner respectively.
3. Heard both sides.
4. The orders impugned in the revision petitions were passed by the Court in exercise of its insolvency jurisdiction and the Court is undisputedly subordinate to the District Court. Section 75(1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, (for short 'the Act') which deals with appeals reads as follows:
75. Appeals (1): The debtor, any creditor, the Receiver or any other person aggrieved by a decision come to or an order made in the exercise of insolvency jurisdiction by a Court subordinate to a district court, may appeal to the District Court and the order of the district court upon such appeal shall be final.
Provided that the High Court, for the purpose of satisfying itself that an order made in any appeal decided by the district court was according to law, may call for the case and pass such order with respect thereto as it thinks fit.
5. In view of the above provision, it is, therefore, clear that against the orders passed by the Court below, which is subordinate to the District Court, an appeal must lie, at the first instance, to the District Court and in respect of any order passed by the District Court in appeal, the High Court, for the purpose of satisfying itself that whether the order passed by the subordinate Court was according to law, may call for the case and pass such order with respect thereto as it thinks fit. Since the orders impugned herein are not passed by the District Court in any appeal filed by the aggrieved party the revision petitions cannot be entertained as per the proviso to Section 75(1) of the Act. The Provisional Insolvency Act is a special enactment creating a Special Court and in the matter of orders passed by the Courts having insolvency jurisdiction, which are subordinate to the District Court, under the first proviso to Section 75(1) of the Act, an appeal shall lie to the District Court (See G.C.C.S. Society v. A.A.P.C.S. Society AIR 1971 Mys 233
6. In view of the same, the present revision petitions cannot be entertained. The revision petitions are accordingly dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to avail remedy of appeal as per law. No costs.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.