Kerala High Court
AS/6/1953 of POORNATHRAYESAM VILASAM BANK LTD. Vs KADIR on 29 July 1953
the Higb. Court of Judicature of Travancore-Cochin; Before ·their Lordships The Hon'ble Justice Shri K. Sankaran & The hon'bie Justice hri K.8.Govinda Pillai. A.S. No. 6 of 19530 --------- M.P.No.355/1125 in• I.,P.No.21/1121 on the file of the District Court of Anjikaimal.
·-t+3-In the Higb. Court of Judicature of TravancoreCochin; ·Beforetheir Lordships The Hon'ble Justice Shri K.Sankaran&The hon'bie Justice hri K.8.Govinda Pillai.
A.S. No.6 of19530---------
M.P.No.355/1125 in• I.,P.No.21/1121 on the fileof the Appellant:
Sree Poor4nathraye¢sa Vilasam Bank Ltd.,irnakulam.
By Advocates Sbri T.S.VenkiteswaraIyer &
C.S.AnanthakrishnaIyer.
Respondents:
--1.Kadir,son of Chovariatl!_,Tburavoo1' PakuthySher~~-tal lai Taluk.(died)(Hirs areimpleaded as respondents 3to 6).
~2.The Official Receier; Anjikaimal DistrictCourt.dd1.Respondents.$. ariomtied trson of chalakkgl !gdir,PaojnjattumkaraVadakkum Muri,Thuravoor Pakuthy,S ertallai.4. Kunji Pathumma wife of deceased1strespondent of do.5.Khadija Ummadaughter of deceasedlst g respondent,residingin·vattathumuriparambil,Thrikkanarvattom Desom,Ernakglam.-6.Nelissa daughterof deceased1strespondent,resid-ingin Puthenveedu, Vadakkumbhagom,Mur i, Shertal lai.
Addl•respondents 3 to 6 have beenimpleaded as per order on G.M.P.325/53 dated 27.2.1953.
Respondents_ .3 to 6 by Advocate Shri A. V .,1v1oothedan.
· This appeal having been,fina11y heard on 29.7.1953
the courton the same day.delivered the foliowing
Judgment.
Page 1 of 2
-The 1st counterpetitionerinI.P.21/1121 on the file\of the Anjikaimal DistrictCourthas preferred this appeal'·againstthat courts order givingsanction applied for~in M.P.355/1125 file by the assignee of the2nd counter(petitioner.The matter had come up before this courtton a prior occasionin A. S. 26/ 1950 and by tbejudgmentin that appealthe case was remanded to thelower courtwith thespecific direction thatthe-courtshould first. consider whetherthe petition comes under section 53 or·54 of the CochinInso'lvency Act and then to consider.the I$LfLr'
·quest ion whether the sanction under sect ion 54 should be.-given.All the same it is seen that thelower court has de<•ferred the first question for consideration and decision toa~ater stage and in the meanwhile has given the sanction ap-plied for.In the present appealthe main objection raisedis tbrn: to such a procedure adopted by the iower court. ·Wethink that the appellant's','I« objeotion i.s we'llfeunded and.. onthat point alone he has to succeed in the appeal.There wasnojustification for thelower court to ignore or act con-trary to the_clear and s.pecific direction. containedin the~remand order.It was. the duty of that court/to act up to that·-direction and to consider first the question whether the al-legations in M.P.355 are such as to bring the petition with~~in sections 53 or4 of thInsolvency Act and in the light-of the conclusion regarding that matter,to proceed to consider and decide the question whether the sanction applied-for under section 54A has toDe given or not.accordingly..the order under appeal is set aside and the case is againremanded to thelower court for fresh disposal as per tbeabove direction.Ni order as to the costs of this appeal.
29th July 1953.(Sd) K.bankaran,_ Judge.(d) K..Govinda Pillai, Judge._( True copy)
·t,to.sst.Registrar,for @gistrar.
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…