9911796707
TMI Blog1945 (1) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne have, before the receipt of such assets, made application to the Court for the execution of decrees for the payment of money passed against the same judgment-debtor and have not obtained satisfaction thereof, the assets, after deducting the costs of realisation, shall be rateably distributed among all such persons." It is common ground that at all material times there was held by the District Court, Unao, assets of one Shanti Lal amounting to a sum of Rs. 49,166 or thereabouts, and that before the receipt of those assets various decree-holders had made applications to the Court for the execution of decrees for the payment of money passed against the said Shanti Lal and had not obtained satisfaction thereof. They accordingly claimed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... brought. The order in favour of the appellant, dated 27th March 1935, was made by the District Judge, Lahore, in the following terms: "Upon the application of the Official Liquidators of the above-named company and upon reading orders passed thereon to-day, it is ordered under section 186 read with section 160 of the Act that Shanti Lal, son of Lala Jairam Das, c/o Lala Kundan Lal, Eastern Electric Works, Cawnpore, do pay to the Official Liquidators of the said company the sum of Rs. 1,37,557-10-3 (one lac, thirty-seven thousand, five hundred and fifty-seven, annas ten and pies three) only with costs due from his late father Lala Jairam Das, the original contributory in respect of a pronote dated 1st July 1928, for Rs. 1,11,500-8-0, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being within the class of persons who had ''made application to the Court for the execution of decrees." The Courts in coming to their conclusions were following the decisien which had been reached in the case in Mohan Lal Lal Chand v. Bhivraj Devi Chand [1934] AIR 1934 Nag. 243 . From any point of view this result, if right in law, would appear strange. It would mean that a company resorting to the short and simple procedure against a contributory which section 186 invites it to adopt, would be depriving itself of an effective method of enforcing its claim which would have been available had it resorted to the longer and more elaborate procedure of a suit. In their Lordships' opinion however the Courts in India have, in the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tanding the somewhat curious fact that, although the company is a "decree-holder" as defined by the Code, it would appear not to hold a "decree" as so defined. While there appears to have been a divergence of view in India upon this question, their Lordships find themselves in agreement with the views expressed by Young, C.J., and Blacker, J., in Radhesham Beopar Co. Ltd. v. Karam Chand [1941] AIR 1941 Lah. 273; 11 Comp. Cas. 229 . In the course of the argument before the Board, it was suggested that even if an application for the execution of the order under the Companies Act must be treated as, or deemed to be, an application for the execution of a decree under section 73 (1) of the Code, nevertheless Shanti Lal could not be sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
