SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1977 Supreme(Ker) 274

GEORGE VADAKKEL
NARAYANA PANICKER – Appellant
Versus
KUNJU PENNU – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. These are appeals from Sub Courts orders in insolvency proceedings. Are these appeals to be tiled here or in the concerted District Court is the question for consideration.

2. Under S.3 of the Insolvency Act, 1956 District Courts are the Courts vested with insolvency jurisdiction. The proviso to that section enables the Government to invest any Court subordinate to a District Court with such jurisdiction by issuing a gazette notification. It is by virtue of power conferred by such notification that the Sub Courts passed the orders under appeal Any Court on whom insolvency jurisdiction is competently conferred by a notification issued under the proviso to S.3 of the Act, is, for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction under the Act, a Court subordinate to a District Court. If so, under S.79(1), appeals from orders passed by a Sub Court lie to the District Court to which that Sub Court is subordinate in matters of insolvency jurisdiction, and not to this Court. The District Court, to which a Court (on whom insolvency jurisdiction is competently conferred by Government), would be subordinate, is that District Court, which, but for a gazette notification under the proviso,














Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top