Skip to content


A.M.V. Avanashi Chetti Vs. Muthukaruppan Chetti and ors. and Doraisami Alias Devanna Goundan and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1918Mad186(1); 44Ind.Cas.885
AppellantA.M.V. Avanashi Chetti
RespondentMuthukaruppan Chetti and ors. and Doraisami Alias Devanna Goundan and anr.
Excerpt:
provincial insolvency act (iii of 1907), section 22 - civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order xxi, rule 90, applicability of, to contracts of sale by receiver--jurisdiction--district court, powers of superintendence of, over acts of receiver. - .....made under that section to the district court within 21 days of the contract of sale and hence the district judge had no power to set aside the contract of sale in a judicial proceeding.2. the respondent, in filing a petition under order xxi, rule 90 of the code of civil procedure, wholly misconceived his remedy.3. the district judge might have the powers of supervision over the receiver and give directions to the receiver not to complete a contract of sale in exercise of such powers of supervision, but that is not what he has done in this case. he has held that an application under order xxi, rule 90 of the code of civil procedure, could be entertained by him in respect of a contract of sale concluded by the receiver and has passed an order purporting to be passed under that provision.....
Judgment:

1. The only power of the District Judge to interfere judicially with the contract of sale entered into by the Receiver is under Section 22 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. No application was made under that section to the District Court within 21 days of the contract of sale and hence the District Judge had no power to set aside the contract of sale in a judicial proceeding.

2. The respondent, in filing a petition under Order XXI, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, wholly misconceived his remedy.

3. The District Judge might have the powers of supervision over the Receiver and give directions to the Receiver not to complete a contract of sale in exercise of such powers of supervision, but that is not what he has done in this case. He has held that an application under Order XXI, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, could be entertained by him in respect of a contract of sale concluded by the Receiver and has passed an order purporting to be passed under that provision of the Civil Procedure Code.

4. The order was, therefore, passed without jurisdiction and is set aside. As this objection seems not to have been taken before the District Judge, there will be no order as to costs throughout.


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