Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 334
Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
G. RAJASURIA, J.
A. Rajan
Versus
Bhagavathiappan (Died) & Others
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1864 of 2011 & M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011
Decided on : 11-01-2013
For the Petitioner:T. Lajapathi Roy, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R8, A.R.M. Ramesh, R20, N. Sivakumar, Advocates.
Only an appeal would lie and not a Civil Revision Petition against the order of appointment of a receiver under Section 20 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, as per Section 75 of the Act.
Headnote:
Civil Revision Petition - Appointment of Official Receiver - The court dismissed the petition, stating that only an appeal would lie and not a Civil Revision Petition against the order of appointment of a receiver, as per Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act.
Fact of the Case:
The Civil Revision Petition was filed to set aside an order passed in a insolvency matter regarding the appointment of an Official Receiver.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition, allowing the revision petitioner to file an appeal before the District Court concerned.
Issues: The issue was whether a Civil Revision Petition would lie against the order of appointment of a receiver under Section 20 of the Provincial Insolvency Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that as per Section 75 of the Act, only an appeal would lie and not a Civil Revision Petition against the order of appointment of a receiver.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, with liberty given to the revision petitioner to file an appeal before the District Court concerned, excluding the time taken for prosecuting the Civil Revision Petition. The connected Miscellaneous Petition was also dismissed with no costs.
1. The Civil Revision Petition has been filed to get set aside the order dated 01.08.2011 passed in I.A.No.198 of 2003 in I.P.No.5 of 2001, by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil.
2. Heard both sides.
3. When the matter has been taken up for hearing, this Court, by referring to Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, raised a query enquiringly, as to how this Civil Revision Petition would lie. The impugned order is against the appointment of an Official Receiver under Section 20 of the said Act. A mere running of the eye over Section 75 of the Act would unambiguously and unequivocally highlight and spotlight the fact that if any person is aggrieved by any order passed by the Insolvency Court/Subordinate Court, the appeal would lie before the District Court concerned. Accordingly, I am of the considered view that only appeal would lie and not Civil Revision Petition as against such order of appointment of receiver.
4. In view of the same, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, giving liberty to the revision petitioner to file the appeal before the District Court concerned, excluding the time taken for prosecuting this Civil Revision Petition. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs.
