9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Execution proceedings stay under Companies Act, Jurisdiction of executing court, Appealability of the order, Effect of scheme on secured creditors, Waiver by judgment-debtor. Analysis: The judgment pertains to a first miscellaneous appeal challenging an order of the Additional Subordinate Judge allowing execution proceedings. The decreeholder obtained a decree in 1948, but a stay order was issued by the High Court under the Companies Act until the scheme was sanctioned. The executing court was adjourning proceedings to await a stay order from the High Court, unaware of the existing stay order. The contention that the executing court was not bound to stay execution without a specific order under the Companies Act was deemed untenable. The stay order from 1948 remained in force even after the scheme was sanctioned, obviating the need for a formal order. The objection that no final order had been passed to trigger an appeal under section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code was overruled, citing a Calcutta High Court judgment. The argument that the stay order only applied to unsecured creditors, not secured creditors like the decreeholder, was rejected. The terms of the order encompassed all creditors, and the interpretation of the Companies Act provision did not support the contention. Additionally, the judgment-debtor's payment to the decree-holder was argued as a waiver of scheme privileges, which was dismissed. Early payment by the judgment-debtor did not constitute a waiver. The appeal was successful, setting aside the order for execution to proceed, with no costs awarded. The sanctioned scheme outlined the enforcement terms for decrees exceeding Rs. 260. Deka, J. concurred with the judgment.
|
