Skip to content


Andra Venkatayya Vs. the Official Receiver and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1939Mad300; (1939)2MLJ414
AppellantAndra Venkatayya
RespondentThe Official Receiver and anr.
Cases Referred and Ramanayya v. Kotayya
Excerpt:
- - the preliminary objection has been taken that no appeal lies and it is abundantly clear that this objection is well founded.alfred henry lionel leach, c.j.1. this is an appeal against an order of king, j., refusing to grant leave to appeal from an order which admittedly falls within section 75(3) of the provincial insolvency act. the preliminary objection has been taken that no appeal lies and it is abundantly clear that this objection is well founded. there are two bench decisions of this court which are in point - madhava aiyar v. muthia chettiar (1916) 5 l.w. 168 and ramanayya v. kotayya : (1929)57mlj398 . the first case related to an order which fell within section 46(3) of the provincial insolvency act, 1907, which corresponds to section 75(3) of the present act, and in the second case the court held that there was no appeal from an order refusing to give leave to appeal under clause 15 of the letters.....
Judgment:

Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. This is an appeal against an order of King, J., refusing to grant leave to appeal from an order which admittedly falls within Section 75(3) of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The preliminary objection has been taken that no appeal lies and it is abundantly clear that this objection is well founded. There are two Bench decisions of this Court which are in point - Madhava Aiyar v. Muthia Chettiar (1916) 5 L.W. 168 and Ramanayya v. Kotayya : (1929)57MLJ398 . The first case related to an order which fell within Section 46(3) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1907, which corresponds to Section 75(3) of the present Act, and in the second case the Court held that there was no appeal from an order refusing to give leave to appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. There is no difference in principle, here. The law does not recognise a right of appeal from a refusal to grant leave where leave is necessary and therefore this appeal does not lie. The appeal will be dismissed with costs.


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