Satyanarayana Rao, J.-This case was referred to a Division Bench by my Lord the Chief Justice for an authoritative decision on the question whether the qualification “aggrieved by a decision” in section 75(1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act necessarily applies to the debtor, creditor and the Receiver expressly named in that sub-section. That question has since been authoritatively decided by a Full Bench of five Judges in C.M.A.No.470 of 1946 (since reported in Narasimham v. Ramayya1) but there is another question which, in our opinion, requires consideration by a Full Bench, viz., whether the Official Receiver, who unsuccessfully applied for prosecuting the insolvent under sections 69 and 70 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, is a person aggrieved by the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge. If the test laid down in Ex parte Official Receiver. In re Reed, Bowen and Co.2 and In re Lamb. Ex parte Board of Trade3, were to be applied which considered similar language under the English Bankruptcy Act, the Receiver would be a person aggrieved by the order and would be entitled to prefer an appeal against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge. But Iyappa Nayanar v. Manicka Asari4 and Palaniappa Chetti v. Subramania Chetti5, which were decisions under the Provincial Insolvency Act of 1907, took a different view and if the principles of those decisions were to be applied the Official Receiver would not be entitled to prefer an appeal. A similar view was taken by the other High Courts, vide Laduram v. Mahabir Prasad6 , Digendra Chandra Basak v. Ramani Mohan Goswami7, Lalchand Hirachand v. Tuljaram Raoji8 and Achhru Ram v. Padam Pershad and another9. There are no doubt observations in the judgment of the Full Bench in C.M.A.No.470 of 19461 which clearly indicate that this Court was inclined to adopt the test laid down in Ex parte Official Receiver. In re Reed Bowen and Co.2. We think that this is a matter which requires an authoritative decision on the point and we therefore direct the papers to be placed before my Lord the Honourable the Chief Justice for constituting a Full Bench.

In pursuance of the above Order of Reference, this petition coming on for tearing

T. Krishna Rao for Petitioner.

K. Veeraswami and G. Ramanujam for Respondent.

The Court expressed the following

Opinion.-The Official Receiver of Ramnad, here petitioner, moved the Insolvency Court of Devakottah to make a complaint under section 70 of the Provincial Insolvency Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) against the insolvent debtor, here respondent, of offences under section 69 of the Act alleged to have been committed by the latter. The Insolvency Court held an enquiry after notice to the respondent but declined to make a complaint. An appeal against the decision of the Insolvency Court preferred by the Receiver to the District Court of Ramnad was rejected on the ground that the Receiver had no right of appeal. The only question in the Civil Revision Petition is whether the decision of the Insolvency Court was appealable at the instance of the Receiver, and the answer depends upon a proper interpretation of section 75, sub-section (1) of the Act which runs thus:

“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.”

In view of the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Narasimham v. Ramayya1, it was conceded, and we think rightly, by the learned advocate for the petitioner that a debtor, creditor or receiver had not an unqualified right of appeal from any decision or order of an Insolvency Court, but a right of appeal only if he was aggrieved by that decision or order. Under section 75(1) of the Act the only person entitled to appeal is “a person aggrieved” by the decision or order and there is no difference in this respect between the provisions of section 46 of the Act of 1907

Click Here to Read the rest of this document