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

1933 Supreme(Mad) 159

MADHAVAN NAIR
Subbaraya Goundan – Appellant
Versus
V. V. R. Virappa Chettiar Bank and its partners being Valliappa Chettiar – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Madhavan Nair, J.

1. The questions referred to the Full Bench are:

(1) Has the judgment-debtor who has been adjudicated an insolvent right to prefer an appeal against an order dismissing an application put in by him under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, in the course of the execution of the decree passed against him? and

(2) If such an appeal is incompetent in its inception can it be continued if the Official Receiver consents to continue it?

2. This reference has been occasioned on account of the conflict between the decisions in Kondapalli Tatireddi v. Ramachandra Rao (1921) 13 L.W. 616 and Palaniandi Chettiar v. Kalyanarama Aiyar (1926) 97 I.C. 486. In Kondapalli Tatireddi v. Ramachandra Rao (1921) 13 L.W. 616 it was held that the insolvency of a judgment-debtor does not render it incompetent for him to continue the proceedings under Order 21, Rule 72 by way of an appeal. In Palaniandi Chettiar v. Kalyanarama Aiyar (1926) 97 I.C. 486 it was held that a party to a suit after adjudication as an insolvent cannot be deemed to be a person aggrieved by it and has therefore no right to institute an appeal against the decree in the suit.

3. The facts of the case under refere

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