LexHANS RAJ versus RATTAN CHAND, ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H HANS RAJ v. RATIAN CHAND, ETC. April 3, 1967 [K. N. WANCHOO, V. BHARGAVA AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.] Provincial Insolvency Act (Punjab Act 5 of 1920) ss. 4 & 6S-appli- <'<ltion against act of rcctiver alleging property taken over by '1in1 not oj insolvent-whether an applical'ion under s. 4 or s. 68-Wltether lilnitatio11 of 21 days in s. 68 appli'S. The appellant's brother was adjudicated insolvent by the Insolvency Judge, Barnala, Punjnb on the 23rd November,. 1954. Two days later a Receiver in insolvency wao appointed by the Court and was directed to take possession of the property of the insolvent On the 26th and 27th November, 1954 the receive took possession of various properties and on the 21st December, 1954, the appellant filed an object.ion application alleging that oome of the property belonged to him and was exclusively in his possession. He therefore prayed for its release. and restoration to him. 'The insolvency Judge rejected a contention that the application wa< time-barred under s. 68 of the Act but held that the property did not belong to the appellant. After first and second appeals to the District Judge. and a s'ngle Bench of the High Court, a division Bench allow'd a Letters Patent Appeal on the ground that the appellant's application was incompetent as barred by limitation. In appeal to this Court the question for de~rmination was whether the. appellant's application was one under s. 68 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, and as such having been made beyond the period of 21 days from the date of the a.ct of the receiver complained of, was covered bv the provil'o to that section. It was contended on behalf of the appeliant that the application was one under s. 4 of the Act in which there is no mention of any period of limitation. HELD : The application. was one under s. 68 and was incompeteut on the groun<l of limitation after the lapse of 21 days from Nowmber 25, 1954. A person complaining of the act of the receiver may either apply un<lcr s. 68 or proceed under the ordinary law of the land. Section 4 docs aot prescribe any opplication for relief under that section. Its object is to define the limits of juri~<l:ction of the courts exercising powers in insolv- ency. A question as to whether an insolvent has any interest in the pro- perty attached by the receiver would fall within the purview of s. 4, but the application for the adjudication of such a question when the receiver acts otherwise than under the order of a court would be covered by s. 68 and as such the period of limitation of twenty-one days woul<l be attracted to any such application. Sub-s. (1) and sub-s. (2) of s. 4 both start with the phrase "subject to the provisions of this Act" and even if it was possible to cons-true that s. 4 envisaged the making of an applica- tion for relief, such application v.<>uld be subject to s. 68 of the Act. [370F; 372E-0] Daulat Ram v. Bansla A.LR. 1937 Lahore page 2. approved; Venk""" ruma v. An11athayamma/ A.LR. 1933 Madras 471, Heerabai v. Official' Receiver A.1.R. 1963 A.P. 296; disapproved. Vel/ayappa Chettiar v. Ramanathan Cite/liar 1.L.R. 47 Madras 446. G. N. Godbole v. Mr. Nani Bai A.LR. 1938 Nagpur 546, M11tluipa/mriapp<C 366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1967] 3 S.C.R. v. Raman C/iettiar A.LR. 1941 Marlras 75; Mui Ra; v. Official Recci>'er A.I.R 1937 Lahore. 297, Ganda Ram v. Shiv Nand Ganesh Das A.LR. 1937 Lahore 757; and Ma, Sein Nu v. U. Mg. Mg. A.LR. 1934 Rangoon 97; Bhairo Prasad v. S. P. C. Dass, A.LR. 1919 Allahabad 274, Hussaini v. Muhammad Zamir Abdi A.LR. 1924 Oudh. 294 and Mui Chand v. Murari Lal, I.L.R. 36 Allahabad 8; referred to. Nat/Ju Ram v. Madan Gopal, A.LR. Allahabad 408; distinguished. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ; CIVIL APPEAL No. 1000 -Of 1964. Appeal from the judgment and order dated November 28, 1962 of lhe Punjab High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 212 of 1961. A B Bishan Narain and B. P. Maheshwari, for the appellant. C Naunit Lal, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mitter, J. This is an appeal by a certificate against a judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court at Chandigarh in Letters Patent Appeal No. 212 of 1961. The High Court allowed the ap- D peal on the ground that the application out of which it arose was incompetent as barred by limitation and, in our opinion, it did so· correctly. The short question before us is, whet
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.