ABDULKADIR Vs. HASSAN ROWTHER
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) In a proceeding arising under S.15 of Act XXXI of 1958 the primary court appointed a receiver to take charge of the properties stated to have been surrendered under sub-section (3) (e) of the Section to the control of the court. Against that order an appeal was filed to the District Court of Kottayam and the learned District Judge dismissed the appeal holding that there was no provision in Act XXXI of 1958 for filing an appeal against an order appointing a receiver.
(2.) Under S.15 there is no provision for appointing a receiver. But under S.15 (3)(e) the debtor has to give a statement to the court that he unconditionally leaves all his assets in the control of the court to be distributed among his creditors. When that was done in the present case, the primary court appointed a receiver to take charge of the properties thus unconditionally left in the control of the court. That appointment must have been under the general procedure contained in the Civil Procedure Code applicable to such matters and not under Act XXXI of 1958. Thus the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding the appointment of receivers should apply to the appointment of receiver in the present case also.
(3.) In Scaria Thomas v. Neelakanta Iyer Krishna Iyer ( 1959 KLT 1233 ) a Division Bench of this Court held in a proceeding under S.11 of Act XXXI of 1958 that the proceedings contemplated by the Act were original proceedings in the nature of a suit and the provisions of the Civil, Procedure Code regarding the issue of injunctions could be invoiced in respect of such original proceedings. I think that observation of the Division Bench will apply to this case as well.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.