9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (3) TMI 45X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... company in liquidation was indebted to her to the extent of Rs. 3,585.80. Instead of ascertaining as to how much out of this claim should be rejected, the official liquidator by his letter, dated 29th September, 1973, communicated to the appellant that he accepted the claim to the extent of Rs. 2,585. This led to some further correspondence between the appellant and the official liquidator which is also annexed to the appeal Eventually, the official liquidator informed the appellant that the sum of Rs. 2,585 was correctly admitted and the appellant could file an appeal under rule 164. It is necessary to say at once that I find the procedure prescribed by law has not been followed by the official liquidator and it is not possible to hear th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssary, but if the claim of the creditor is rejected wholly or in part, then the official liquidator has to give reasons. Those reasons are appealable under rule 164 to the court. Rule 164 requires a creditor to appeal to the court, if he so desires, within 21 days. If he does appeal, then the court has all the powers of an appellate court under the Code of Civil Procedure. I omitted to mention one feature of Form No. 69, referred to above; the Form also states that the order is appealable within 21 days. The purpose of Form No. 69 is obviously to inform a creditor that he can file an appeal against the official liquidator's order if he so desires, within 21 days, and the grounds of rejection appearing in that Form are obviously those very ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal of this type are those of an appellate court under the Code. This is what rule 164 says. The power of the appellate court or the steps taken by the appellate court will depend on the decision, which is appealed against, and if the decision does not contain any grounds and no facts are stated in the decision, it would obviously become a case in which the court below has failed to decide the issues arising in the case or to determine the point of controversy. In other words, the official liquidator has not given a judgment at all. This is exactly a case where a remand should be made under Order 41, rule 23 or under Order 41, rule 25 or under the amended powers of remand as available under the amended provisions of Order 41 applicable t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowing a claim and not an order rejecting the claim. Consequently, there was no occasion for the appellant to file an appeal under rule 164 in respect of this order. After this letter of 29th September, 1973, there was considerable correspondence between the appellant and the official liquidator, which culminated in the eventual letter of the official liquidator, dated 12th December, 1973. I may mention that the final letter was written by the then assistant official liquidator, Mr. S. C. Mittal, who is now the official liquidator. He stated that "this is to inform you that your claim admitted by this office on September 29, 1973, amounting to Rs. 2,585 is correctly admitted as per records available with the company". He also stated that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
