9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Entitlement to rateable distribution of sale proceeds between multiple decree-holders. 2. Jurisdictional error in the lower court's decision. 3. Competency of the petition considering one respondent being in liquidation. The judgment involves a petition for revision regarding the entitlement to rateable distribution of sale proceeds between decree-holders. The petitioner, Simla Banking and Industrial Company Limited, sought rateable distribution with Indo-Swiss Trading Company Ltd., Calcutta, and Peoples Bank of Northern India (in liquidation) in the sale proceeds of a house in Lahore. The lower court held that Simla Banking was not entitled to share in the sale proceeds as no application for rateable distribution was made by them before the sale. The court considered applications for attachment made by other decree-holders before the sale as crucial for rateable distribution. The petitioner contended that the lower court erred in its interpretation of the law regarding rateable distribution. The judgment addresses the jurisdictional error in the lower court's decision. The court held that the attachment of the house by another decree-holder before the sale did not entitle the petitioner to share in the sale proceeds. The lower court deemed Section 63 of the Civil Procedure Code inapplicable as both courts involved were of concurrent jurisdiction. However, the petitioner argued that the attachment made by them before the sale should have secured their entitlement to rateable distribution. The court found the lower court's decision erroneous for failing to consider the attachment made by the petitioner before the sale. A preliminary objection was raised regarding the competency of the petition due to one respondent, Peoples Bank of Northern India, being in liquidation. The objection claimed that proceedings against a company in liquidation require prior sanction from the Liquidation Court under Section 171 of the Companies Act. However, the court overruled this objection citing precedents that appeals or revision petitions arising from actions by a company in liquidation do not fall under the purview of Section 171. The court found the objection without merit and proceeded to address the substantive issues raised in the petition for revision. ---
|
