Skip to content


Gopu China Jogayya, Gopu Seshavatharam and Co. Vs. Manepalli Bapanayya and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1939Mad374; (1939)1MLJ88
AppellantGopu China Jogayya, Gopu Seshavatharam and Co.
RespondentManepalli Bapanayya and ors.
Excerpt:
- - therefore the act clearly contemplates the appointment of some one other than the official receiver in special circumstances and we consider that the court has power to appoint an additional receiver when the case demands it......brother-in-law, mr. venkatakrishnayya was prepared to furnish it himself, if he were appointed a special receiver for the purpose of conducting the appeal. this was brought to the notice of the learned district judge in a formal application later in the day, whereupon the learned district judge cancelled his previous order and appointed mr. venkatakrishnayya as receiver for the purpose of the appeal. the first respondent in the appeal has filed a petition (no. 2992 of 1938) asking the court to declare that the appeal has abated so far as the first appellant is concerned, the contention being that the district court had no power to appoint any one but the official receiver to take the place of the insolvent.2. section 56 of the provincial insolvency act states that the court may, at the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. After this appeal had been instituted, the first appellant was adjudicated an insolvent in the District Court of Kistna at Masulipatam and Mr. V. Rama Rao, the Official Receiver of that Court, was authorised under an order dated the 25th August, 1938, to continue the appeal in the place of the first appellant. The insolvent was not able to furnish the necessary security, but his brother-in-law, Mr. Venkatakrishnayya was prepared to furnish it himself, if he were appointed a special receiver for the purpose of conducting the appeal. This was brought to the notice of the learned District Judge in a formal application later in the day, whereupon the learned District Judge cancelled his previous order and appointed Mr. Venkatakrishnayya as receiver for the purpose of the appeal. The first respondent in the appeal has filed a petition (No. 2992 of 1938) asking the Court to declare that the appeal has abated so far as the first appellant is concerned, the contention being that the District Court had no power to appoint any one but the Official Receiver to take the place of the insolvent.

2. Section 56 of the Provincial Insolvency Act states that the Court may, at the time of the order of adjudication, or at any time afterwards, appoint a receiver for the property of the insolvent, and such property shall thereupon vest in the receiver. It is conceded that, under this section the Court if it wished could appoint two or more persons as receivers, but it is said that, when a receiver or receivers have been appointed under the section, only he or they can act on behalf of the insolvent. In our opinion, the section does not operate to prohibit the Court appointing an additional receiver for a special purpose. Section 57 of the Act confers upon the Local Government the power to appoint Official Receivers to act within such local limits as it may prescribe and states that, where any Official Receiver has been so appointed for the local limits of the jurisdiction of any Court having jurisdiction under the Act, he shall be the receiver for the purpose of every order appointing a receiver of an interim, receiver issued by any such Court, unless the Court for special reasons otherwise directs. Therefore the act clearly contemplates the appointment of some one other than the Official Receiver in special circumstances and we consider that the Court has power to appoint an additional receiver when the case demands it. The Court has passed an order appointing a special receiver to represent the estate in the present appeal. All that the law requires is that the estate shall be represented by a receiver appointed in the insolvency proceedings and the appointment has been made. In these circumstances, we refuse the application filed by the first respondent for an order declaring the abatement of the appeal. The appeal has not abated and as there is before us a petition by Mr. Venkatakrishnayya, the special receiver, asking that he be added as an appellant, we direct that his name be brought on the record in the place of the name of the insolvent.

3. There is also before us an application by the first respondent for an order directing the new appellant to furnish security for costs. This application is unopposed. The first respondent asks that security be ordered in the sum of Rs. 2,235 of which Rs. 1,735 represents the costs awarded to him in the trial Court and the balance of Rs. 500 the estimated costs of the appeal. By an order of the trial Court the costs awarded to the first respondent were made a charge on certain properties of the insolvent. The first respondent asks for a further order in respect of the trial Court costs as he states that a petition for the revision of that order has been filed in this Court. We are informed by the learned Advocate for the insolvent that that application has been returned to him by the Court and that it is not intended to re-file it. In these circum stances, we consider that the proper order to make now is that the special receiver shall deposit in this Court a sum of Rs. 500 as security for the costs in the appeal of the first respondent. Ten days time will be allowed for the payment of the money.

4. The special receiver is entitled to his costs in the application by the first respondent for an order declaring that the appeal has abated and the first respondent will get his costs as against the special receiver in the application for an order directing him to furnish security for costs. There will be no order as to costs on the formal application made by the special receiver for an order directing that his name be brought on the record.


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