9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (7) TMI 578X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent herein has filed O.S. No. 1624 of 1985 in the Court of the V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyerabad against the petitioner herein for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,25,624-72 with interest at 18 per cent per annum. The suit was decreed on 27-6-1991. No appeal was filed against the decree and it became final. The first respondent filed E.P. No. 45 of 2001 in the Court of the Senio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act and the bar contained in section 8 is to be read only in the context of a creditor filing an I.P. against a Company or Corporation. The learned Counsel submits that such an interpretation would be in consonance with the schemes of the Companies Act which provides for initiation of proceedings including winding up petitions, against Companies only in the High Court. According to him, when an I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under any enactment for the time being in force." 7. From a reading of the same, it is evident that the bar imposed therein or exemption granted in favour of Companies and Corporations is absolute. It is true that section 7 of the Act permits filing of insolvency petitions by creditors as well as debtors. The question of a creditor filing an IP against a Company does not arise. The language of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... des for protection in favour of persons who are declared as insolvents. A doubt arose as to whether an order of protection so passed could operate against the State also. Interpreting the provisions of the Act, the Calcutta High Court held that no exception is carved out in favour of a State, insofar as the operation of the order of protection is concerned. In fact, the Act does not prohibit filin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
