Skip to content


Official Receiver, Madurai Vs. P.N. Krishnaier and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.R.P. No. 2219 of 1980
Judge
Reported inAIR1983Mad80
ActsProvincial Insolvency Act, 1920 - Sections 35, 37 and 59; ;Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 40, Rule 1; Madras High Court Civil Rules of Practice - Rules 163 and 165
AppellantOfficial Receiver, Madurai
RespondentP.N. Krishnaier and ors.
Appellant AdvocateD.C. Krishnamurthi, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateV. Natarajan, Adv.
Cases ReferredBalusami Naidu v. Official Receiver
Excerpt:
.....on the passing of an order of annulment the official receiver has locus standi to file an application in respect of the arrears of rent for the period for which the estate had been vested with him.;held, inspite of the order of annulment, the official receiver is bound to carry on the administration of the estate for the period for which the estate vested with the official receiver to its logical end. the official receiver will have to realise the amount due to the estate during that period and account for the same to the persons concerned. the rent in court deposit relates to the period during which the property vested with the official receiver and as such he has got every right to receive the rent lying in court deposit. - - .....receiver is bound to carry on the administration of the estate for the period for which the estate vested with the official receiver to its logical end. the official receiver will have to realize the amount due to the estate during that period and account for the same to the persons concerned. the rent in court deposit relates to the period during which the property vested with the official receiver and as such he has got every right to receive the rent lying in court deposit. the view taken by the lower court that the official receiver has no locus standi to file the application even in respect of the arrears of rent for the period for which the estate vested with him, does not appear to be correct. the learned counsel for the third respondent contends that in view of the order.....
Judgment:
1. This civil revision petition is filed by the Official Receiver, Madurai, against the order of dismissal passed by the Subordinate Judge, Madurai, dismissing I. A. No. 30 of 1980 in O. S. 444 of 1974. The said application was filed under Ruled 163 and 165 of Civil Rules of Practice for the issue of a cheque in favour of the Official Receiver for Rupees 23,058-65, which represented the rent in respect of the property vested with the Official Receiver and which was deposited by the tenant in the proceedings started by him with reference to the property in his occupation. The amount in court deposit represented the rent for house property forming part of the estate and it is for the period from 1-7-1974 to 23-8-1979. It has to be noted that the insolvency itself has been annulled on 23-8-1979.

2. The contention of the third respondent herein (tenant in occupation of the premises) is that in view of the order of annulment, the Official Receiver has no locus stand to file the application since the Receivership has come to an end on the date of annulment. The learned Subordinate Judge agreeing with the said contention dismissed the application. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the said order of dismissal.

3. It is contended on behalf of the civil revision petitioner that on the passing of the order of annulment only the status of the insolvent comes to an end; but the administration of the estate for the period which it was vested with the Official Receiver will have to be carried on to its logical end. In support of this contention, the decision reported in Kamireddi Timmappa v. Devasi Harpal, AIR1929 Mad 157, is relied upon where the following observation is found :-

"I think, therefore, the correct view of the position is that although the annulment of adjudication puts an end to the insolvent's state of insolvency, it does not in cases such as are contemplated by Section 37, where the court still retails control of the insolvent's assets, put an end to the insolvency proceedings within the meaning of Section 28 that all creditors named in the insolvency petition schedule are bound by a composition which has been approved by the Court and must come in on foot of it and cannot have any remedy dehors the insolvency proceedings, and that any creditor is entitled, unless the court thinks its application is unduly delayed, to prove his debt at any time before the final dividend has been paid........."

4. Apart from the above observation, in spite of the order of annulment the Official Receiver is bound to carry on the administration of the estate for the period for which the estate vested with the Official Receiver to its logical end. The Official Receiver will have to realize the amount due to the estate during that period and account for the same to the persons concerned. The rent in Court deposit relates to the period during which the property vested with the Official Receiver and as such he has got every right to receive the rent lying in Court deposit. The view taken by the lower court that the Official Receiver has no locus standi to file the application even in respect of the arrears of rent for the period for which the estate vested with him, does not appear to be correct. The learned counsel for the third respondent contends that in view of the order of annulment the Official Receiver has no locus standi to file the application and relies upon a case reported inBalusami Naidu v. Official Receiver, Madurai, 1965 IC 207 (sic), for this proposition. That was a case where an application was filed for restraining the Official Receiver from selling the properties after the order of annulment was passed. The facts of that case are entirely different and the principles laid down in that case cannot be applied to the facts of this case which relate to the recovery of rent for a period for which the estate vested with the Official Receiver.

5. Under these circumstances, the order of the lower court will have to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside and the civil revision petition is allowed. There will be an order directing the issue of a cheque for Rs. 23,058-65 as prayed for in I. A. 30 of 1980, in favour of the Official Receiver. There will be no order as to costs.

Revision allowed.


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