The petitioner herein was a lessee of the property which was sold by the Official Receiver. The petitioner filed the above I.A. No. 49 of 1966 on the file of the Sub-Court, Ootacamund, on the ground that the sale conducted by the Official Receiver was vitiated for two reasons (1) that the sale was conducted without notice to him as lessee in possession of the property sold and (2) that there was no sufficient publication so as to attract the highest bid. The ?Courts below have taken the view that the petitioner herein is not an aggrieved person so as to entitle him to file an application under Section 68 of the Provincial Insolvency Act for setting aside the sale conducted by the Official Receiver of the insolvent's property that as a lessee he is not entitled to any notice of sale and that as such the petition filed by the petitioner for setting aside the sale was not maintainable. In that view, both the Courts have not gone into the merits of the petitioner's other contentions.
held that

In this case, no creditor has come forward to challenge the sale conducted by the Official Receiver. It is not possible to say that any lessee of the property of the insolvent will be a person aggrieved within the meaning of Section 68 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. On a close reading of Section 68 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, it is seen that " any other person " cannot be construed to include any person unconnected with the insolvent's property or its administration. The words " any other person " has to be understood in the light of the words following them, that is, " is aggrieved." Even if the learned Counsel's contention is accepted that a lessee will come within the scope of" any other person " in Section 68, it should be further shown that he is aggrieved by the order sought to be challenged by him. As already stated except to protect his position, he is not intrested in the insolvent's property or its administration thereof.

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.20 of C.P.C - Territorial Jurisdiction - suit for recovery of money based on Contract - As per the admitted plaint averments, the office of the defendants is located in Pargi, the offer made by the petitioner was accepted at Pargi, the contract was entered between the petitioner and the respondents at Pargi and the same was executed within the jurisdiction of the Court at Pargi.- Plaint returned with objection - as an after thought added the acceptance of contract was received at Malkajgiri - Trail court returned the plaint to file in proper court - Revision - Their Lordships held that if filing of suit is based on making of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where the offer is accepted and if the suit is based on termination of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where such termination order is received. Admittedly, the suit is based on making of a contract and not on termination of the contract.- dismissed the revision - 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS