OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE, HIGH COURT, BOMBAY versus HARADAGIRI BASAVANNA GOWD AND OTHERS

Citation: [1963] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 809 · Decided: 01-11-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

1 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE, HIGH COURT, 
BOMBAY 
v. 
HARADAGIRI BASAV ANNA GOWD 
AND OTHERS 
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, 
K. N. WANCHOO, K. C. D.AS'GUI'TA and 
]. C. SHAH, JJ.) 
809 
lnsolvency-Adjudication-Oourts -of different juriscllictions-
Where property vests-Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, ss. 17 
and 51-Pravinciallnsolvency Act, 1920'(5of1920), ss. 28, 77. 
Pending adjudication proceedings instituted on 25-1-50 in 
the District Court ofBellary, the respondent was permitted to 
take possession of the goods which he claimed as belonging to 
him and to dispose Of them on condition that if his claim was 
disallowed, he should redeposit the· sale proceeds together· with 
interest in the Court. 
O~ the petition of other creditor~, the 
Bombay High Court passed an adjudication order on April 
17, 1950 as a result of which all the properties of the insolvent 
vested in the Official Assignee Bombay. On December 13, 1950, 
while passing the order of adjudication, on an .application of the 
Official Assignee, the District Court of Bellary directed the 
Official Receiver, Bellary, to move the Bombay Higl1 Court to 
have the adjudication order made by it annulled. The respon-
dent was a party to the Official {\ssignee's application. The 
Official Receiver not having taken any steps, the Official 
Assignee brought the matter to the notice of the Bcllary Court 
and thereafter the Official Receiver moved the 1lombay llil'(h 
Court which refused to annul the an judication order made by 
it. The Bellary Court directed the Official Receiver .to transmi! 
all the amounts lyinJ? in deposit in the B<;llary Court to Bombay 
and directed the respondent to redeposit -the arrtounts so that it 
could be transferred to Bombay. On appeal by the respondent 
the High Court of ,\ndhra Pradesh held that the application of 
the Official As;ignee was not in conformity with s. 77 of the 
Provincial Insolvency Act and that it was more convenient that 
the estate of the insolvent should be administer~d bv the 
District Court at Kurnool Vl'hich was the successor of the DistriCt 
Court at Bellafy consequent upon the re.!organlsatipn o{ the 
States. On appeal by the Officie l -\ssignee, 
' 
· 
I 
1962 
1962 
Official Assignee, 
-glz Court, Bombay 
v . 
.f{arodagiri Basa• 
vanna Gowd 
"Jajendragadkar, /, 
810 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963) SUPP. 
Held, that the combined operation of s. I? and s. 51 of 
the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act was co vest the estate of 
the insolvent in the Official Assignee and that such vesting did 
not by reason· of s. 28(7) of the Provincial Insolvency Act 
become divested by relating the vesting back to the date of pre-
sentation of the petition inthe Bellary Court. 
The Official Assignee of Madras v. Tlte Official Assignee of 
Rangoon by his Agent Subramania Aiyar, I. L. R. 42 Mad. 12l, 
referred to. 
-
JleW,, further, that the application made by the Official 
Assignee to the Bellary Court could not be construed as an 
application under s. 77 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. 
Re : L. King & Ca. 38 Cal. 542, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal 
No. 291 of 1960. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
decree dated October 21, 1955, of the Andhra High 
Court at Guntur in Appeal against order No. 94 of 
1952. 
I. N. Shroff, for the appellant. 
P. Rlim Reddy, for the respondents. 
1962. 
November 1. The Judgment of the 
Court was delivered by 
GAJENDRAOADKAR, J.-This appeal by special 
leave arises out of insolvency proceedings taken against 
the firm of T. A. Doshi, Bombay (hereinafter called 
the firm) by its creditors on the original side of the 
Bombay High Court, as well as in the District Court, 
Bellary. The orders of adjudication passed against 
the said firm by the two Courts have led to some 
avoidable complications and delay, with the result 
that the claim made by the respondents in respect of 
a portion of the property of.the insol.vent before.the 
District Court at Bellary still remams to be tried, 
though the involvency orders were passed as early 
as 1950. 
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
811 
It appears that on January 25, 1950, ~ 
application was presented (I. P. No. 2 of 1950) m 
the District Court, Bellary, by some of the creditors 
of the firm for adjudicating the firm as insolvent, and 
on December 13, 1950, an order of adjudication 
was passed. 
Pending the adjudication proceedings, 
the District Court appointed the Official Recei

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.