Skip to content


Janapareddi Tirupati Rao Vs. Kancherla Veeraswami - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberA.A.O. No. 621 of 1948
Judge
Reported inAIR1951Mad686; (1950)1MLJ630
ActsProvincial Insolvency Act, 1920 - Sections 69 and 70
AppellantJanapareddi Tirupati Rao
RespondentKancherla Veeraswami
Appellant AdvocateM.S. Ramchandra Rao, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateN. Bapiraju, Adv. and ;Public Prosecutor
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
- - should be satisfied that there is ground for enquiring into any offences referred to in section 69. it is not necessary, & the ct is not bound, so far as the language goes, to make a preliminary enquiry even. in the present case the learned district judge was satisfied that there was sufficient ground for filing a complaint against the insolvent. theorder of the learned dist judge, in my opinion,is perfectly correct and the appeal thereforefails & is dismissed with costs......may be filed against the 'insolvent as in his opinion, there was ground for enquiring into offences referred to in section 69 of the act. the main argument in this appeal is that there is no proof that any of the acts contemplated by section 69 of the provincial insolvency act were in fact committed and that therefore the order of the learned district judge is unsustainable. in my opinion, it is unnecessary under section 70, to establish, before launching a prosecution, the various offences referred to in section 69. all that section 70 requires is that the ct. should be satisfied that there is ground for enquiring into any offences referred to in section 69. it is not necessary, & the ct is not bound, so far as the language goes, to make a preliminary enquiry even. in the.....
Judgment:

Satyanarayana Rao, J.

This is an appeal against the order of the learned Dist Judge of West Godavari, directing, under Section 70 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, that a complaint may be filed against the 'insolvent as in his opinion, there was ground for enquiring into offences referred to in Section 69 of the Act. The main argument in this appeal is that there is no proof that any of the acts contemplated by Section 69 of the Provincial Insolvency Act were in fact committed and that therefore the order of the learned District Judge is unsustainable. In my opinion, it is unnecessary under Section 70, to establish, before launching a prosecution, the various offences referred to in Section 69. All that Section 70 requires is that the Ct. should be satisfied that there is ground for enquiring into any offences referred to in Section 69. It is not necessary, & the Ct is not bound, so far as the language goes, to make a preliminary enquiry even. In the present case the learned District Judge was satisfied that there was sufficient ground for filing a complaint against the insolvent. Theorder of the learned Dist Judge, in my opinion,is perfectly correct and the appeal thereforefails & is dismissed with costs.


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