Skip to content


Ladu Ram and anr. Vs. Mahabir Prasad - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1917All280; (1917)ILR39All171; 37Ind.Cas.996
AppellantLadu Ram and anr.
RespondentMahabir Prasad
Cases ReferredIyappa Nainar v. Manikka Asari
Excerpt:
provincial insolvency act (iii of 1907), sections 43 (2), 46 (2) - 'person aggrieved' meaning of-appeal--offence, nature of. - .....claims to have a right of appeal as being a person described by section 46, sub-section (2), as 'a person aggrieved by an order made by the district court under section 43, sub-section (2).' he can only be aggrieved as a member of the public is aggrieved by a decision in a case of which he does not approve. he is not an aggrieved person ' in the sense in which the words are used by the section. we, therefore, think he has no right of appeal. we agree with the head-note in the case of iyappa nainar v. manikka asari 27 ind. cas. 241, decided by the madras high court. we are not, however, prepared to go the length of the reasons given in the judgment. the question whether a right of appeal exists at all for example by a receiver if there happens to be one, does not arise in this case. we,.....
Judgment:

1. In our opinion this preliminary objection must prevail. The respondent has been adjudicated an insolvent. No Receiver has been appointed. The rights of the Receiver must, therefore, under Section 23 be exercised by the Court. The present appellant by an application of the 22nd of November 1915, brought to the notice of the Court allegations said to constitute an offence under Section 43, sub-Section (2). It is to be observed that the offences dealt with under that Section are in the nature of disciplinary offences, that is to say offences committed by the insolvent during the insolvency in the nature of breaches of duty to the Court and not offences against the general criminal law. The Insolvency Court on the 19th of April 1916, decided that there was no case. The present appellant claims to have a right of appeal as being a person described by Section 46, Sub-Section (2), as 'a person aggrieved by an order made by the District Court under Section 43, Sub-Section (2).' He can only be aggrieved as a member of the public is aggrieved by a decision in a case of which he does not approve. He is not an aggrieved person ' in the sense in which the words are used by the Section. We, therefore, think he has no right of appeal. We agree with the head-note in the case of Iyappa Nainar v. Manikka Asari 27 Ind. Cas. 241, decided by the Madras High Court. We are not, however, prepared to go the length of the reasons given in the judgment. The question whether a right of appeal exists at all for example by a Receiver if there happens to be one, does not arise in this case. We, therefore, leave that question open to be decided when it arises. We dismiss the appeal with costs including fees on the higher scale.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //