Skip to content


Kidambi Sambamurthi Aiyar Vs. E. Ramakrishna Aiyar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1929Mad43; 114Ind.Cas.847; (1928)55MLJ837
AppellantKidambi Sambamurthi Aiyar
RespondentE. Ramakrishna Aiyar and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....the time during which to apply for discharge under section 27 of the provincial insolvency act. on appeal to the district court this order was reversed. the appeal against the order of the district court is laid to the high court. mr. justice jackson held that no appeal lay evidently under section 75(2). section 75 (2) runs as follows:any such person aggrieved by any such decision or order of a district court as is specified in schedule i, come to or made otherwise than in appeal from an order made by a subordinate court, may appeal to the high court.2. this order is one made under schedule i and quite obviously on the terms of this section there is no second appeal in the matter. it has been sought however to argue from the second proviso to section 75(1) that the order can be taken to.....
Judgment:

Pakenham Walsh, J.

1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Jackson, J., in appeal against the order of the District Court of Madura in C.M.A. No. 201 of 1926, which was preferred against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul, dated 7th August, 1926 in M.P. No. 223 of 1925. The original order granted an extension of the time during which to apply for discharge under Section 27 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. On appeal to the District Court this order was reversed. The appeal against the order of the District Court is laid to the High Court. Mr. Justice Jackson held that no appeal lay evidently under Section 75(2). Section 75 (2) runs as follows:

Any such person aggrieved by any such decision or order of a District Court as is specified in Schedule I, come to or made otherwise than in appeal from an order made by a Subordinate Court, may appeal to the High Court.

2. This order is one made under Schedule I and quite obviously on the terms of this section there is no second appeal in the matter. It has been sought however to argue from the second proviso to Section 75(1) that the order can be taken to be one under Section 4 of the Act and a second appeal lies against any order passed under Section 4 on a question of law. To say that this order is passed under Section 4 amounts to saying that every order under the Act can be brought under Section 4 and that therefore a second appeal lies on a question of law against every order passed under the Act. That is to render the schedule and the plain proviso of Section 75 (2) meaningless. A sort of analogy was sought to be drawn from the Civil Procedure Code, but that does not in our opinion apply. There is nothing in the decisions quoted in that analogy which renders one part of that Act inconsistent with another, whereas the effect here is to wipe out a definite proviso as to appeal. It is a settled principle of construction that an Act must be construed, if possible, consistently with itself. We therefore find against the contention and dismiss the appeal with costs.


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