Skip to content


Ponnuswami Naicker Vs. T.P.L.S. Subramania Chettiar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in91Ind.Cas.460
AppellantPonnuswami Naicker
RespondentT.P.L.S. Subramania Chettiar
Excerpt:
insolvency - official receiver, position of--unsecured creditor, right of, to maintain application. - .....the proper person to take proceedings under the insolvency act is the official receiver or the special receiver whosoever is appointed. in this case the special receiver did apply to the district court to stop the sale and his application was refused by the district court. the appellant who is a creditor now applies in the district court for the same relief which was denied to the special receiver. the special receiver represented all the unsecured creditors in previous proceedings and the order against him is binding on all the unsecured creditors. the respondent is a secured creditor and an unsecured creditor cannot move the court in insolvency unless the official receiver or special receiver has refused to act in the matter. here he has acted and failed. the appellant is not.....
Judgment:

1. The appellant is a creditor who consented to the composition which was accepted by the Court. He has no right to object to the sale of the charged property by the District Munsif's Court, The proper person to take proceedings under the Insolvency Act is the Official Receiver or the Special Receiver whosoever is appointed. In this case the Special Receiver did apply to the District Court to stop the sale and his application was refused by the District Court. The appellant who is a creditor now applies in the District Court for the same relief which was denied to the Special Receiver. The Special Receiver represented all the unsecured creditors in previous proceedings and the order against him is binding on all the unsecured creditors. The respondent is a secured creditor and an unsecured creditor cannot move the Court in insolvency unless the Official Receiver or Special Receiver has refused to act in the matter. Here he has acted and failed. The appellant is not competent to maintain this appeal. The order of the learned District Judge is right. The appeal is dismissed with costs.


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