Skip to content


Unni Pillai Vs. Sreedharan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Case NumberA.S. No. 696 of 1958
Judge
Reported inAIR1960Ker146
ActsProvincial Insolvency Act, 1920 - Sections 41 and 75
AppellantUnni Pillai
RespondentSreedharan
Appellant Advocate V. Parameswara Menon, Adv.
Respondent Advocate M.K. Narayana Menon, Adv.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
- .....could have preferred an appeal against the original order.2. in the result the preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this appeal is upheld and the appeal is dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

Sankaran, C.J.

1. This appeal is directed against the lower court's order dismissing an application for a review of an earlier conditional order allowing the insolvent's prayer for an order of discharge. The lower court considered the grounds on which the review was sought for and came to the conclusion that there is no proper or justifiable ground for a review. Accordingly, the application for review was dismissed, Such an order is not an appealable order. There is no specific provision in the Insolvency Act for review-' fog the orders passed by the Insolvency court.

However, it may be taken that the Insolvency court has got that power also in view of the provision making the Civil Procedure Code applicable to insolvency proceedings. Even then it cannot be said that there is a right of appeal to any of the parties, in respect of an order dismissing an application for review. The aggrieved party could have preferred an appeal against the original order.

2. In the result the preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this appeal is upheld and the appeal is dismissed with costs.


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