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

1916 Supreme(Mad) 483

S.AIYANGAR
P. L. S. Palaniappa Chetty Alias – Appellant
Versus
P. L. P. P. L. Palaniappa Chetty And – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.

1. The substantial question referred to us for determination is whether an order determining that it is just and convenient to appoint a receiver, i.e., an order for the appointment of a receiver, and before a particular person is selected and appointed as such receiver, is appeal able.

2. The right of appeal is conferred by Clause S of Order XLIII which provides inter alia that an appeal shall lie from an order under Rule 1 of Order XL; and that rule, omitting the portions not material for the present purpose, is in these terms "where it appears to the Court to be just and convenient the Court may by order (a) appoint a receiver." The question is whether the order referred to above is an order under this rule.

3. When an application is made for the appointment of a receiver, the most important question for determination is whether it is just and convenient to appoint a receiver in the circumstances, and if the Court comes to the conclusion, that it is not shewn to be just and convenient to appoint a receiver, it must dismiss the application. This determination is made under rule I, and there can be no doubt that that order is appealable. It was so decid






























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