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

1927 Supreme(Mad) 651

PHILLIPS
R. Subramania Ayyar – Appellant
Versus
Dharapuram Janopakara Nidhi Ltd. – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Phillips, J.

1. The only question that has been argued is whether the interim Receiver appointed under Section 20, Provincial Insolvency Act, can apply under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C., for setting aside a sale. Under Rule 90 the persons who can apply are

any person entitled to share in a rateable distribution of assets or whose interests are effected by the sale.

2. Under the preceding Rule 89 the persons that can apply are such as either own such property or hold an interest therein by virtue of a title acquired before such sale. The difference in the language clearly shows that the persons in Rule 90 are not identical with those referred to in Rule 89. The wording of Rule 90 is really very much wider than it is in the preceding rule. It is also significant that the wording of Rule 90 is substituted for the old Section 311 of the Code of 1882 which only makes provision for " any person whose immovable property has been sold." The legislature has by this alteration very much enlarged the class of persons who can apply under Rule 90 and, as held by the Calcutta High Court in Direndra Nath v. Kamini Kumar A.I.R. 1924 Cal. 786, it is clear that the word "interests" need not b


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