9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (8) TMI 163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the firm, Seth Munna Lal Ishwar Chander through Shri Ishwar Chander Latka, filed different claims. The official liquidator asked them to prove their claims but they were unable to prove the claims. Consequently, the official liquidator vide his order dated August 1, 1974, rejected the claim of Shri I.C. Latka, and as regards the claims of firm Seth Munna Lal Ishwar Chander and Smt. Champa Vati Latka, the same were partly accepted and partly rejected. This order of the official liquidator was not appealed against as the appeal is provided under rule 164 of the Rules. The said three claimants approached this court by way of three claim petitions claiming that their claims are well founded and this court may now adjudicate the same. In the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : "164. Appeal by creditor. If a creditor is dissatisfied with the decision of the liquidator in respect of his proof, the creditor may, not later than 21 days from the date of service of the notice upon him of the decision of the liquidator, appeal to the court against the decision. The appeal shall be made by a judge's summons, supported by an affidavit which shall set out the grounds of such appeal, and notice of the appeal shall be given to the liquidator. On such appeal the court shall have all the powers of an appellate court under the Code." In the present case, admittedly, no appeal has been filed, Mr. Baldev Kapoor; the learned counsel for the claimants, relies on the provisions of rule 177 of the Rules, which is as follows ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 74. This obviously cannot be done. The present petition in this court was filed on October 4, 1974, whereas the order passed by the official liquidator is dated August 1, 1974. The period of limitation for preferring an appeal under rule 164 of the Rules is 21 days from the date of the service of the notice from the decision of the official liquidator. Mr. Kapoor conceded that the present claim petition has been filed beyond that period of limitation. There is no application for condonation of the delay and even if the present claims are treated as an appeal against the order of the official liquidator the same is barred by limitation. In view of what has been stated above, the preliminary issue is decided against the claimants and it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
