Skip to main content

Attachment Before Judgment: Kerala HC Clarifies That Order On Claim Petition Is Appealable As Decree

The High Court of Kerala has clarified that an order adjudicating a claim over a property under attachment before judgment is appealable as if it was a decree. The clarification was made by a division bench comprising Justice V Chitambaresh and Justice Narayana Pisharadi, answering a reference whether such an order could be challenged in an original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The reference was occasioned when the registry refused to assign a number to an original petition filed challenging an order on claim petition, on the ground that it was original petition was not maintainable as the order was appealable. The decision of a single judge in Ali v Muhammadali 1995(2) KLT 225 was cited. However, the single bench overruled the objection of the registry by relying on a decision of division bench in Anto Mamkoottam v Peruvanthanam Service Co-operative Bank 1996(2) KLT 962. In view of the ensuing confusion, the reference to division bench was made.

The division bench noted that as per Order XXXVIII Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, claim petitions on property under attachment before judgment should be adjudicated in the manner provided for adjudication of claims with respect to property under attachment in execution of a decree. The claims for properties under attachment in execution are to be dealt with as per Order XXI Rule 58 CPC. The orders made under Order XXI Rule 58 have the same force as if it were a decree, as per Rule 58(4). Therefore, an order on claim petition with respect to property under attachment before judgment has the same force as a decree. Therefore, it follows that such an order is appealable in the same manner a decree can be subjected to appeal, as per Section 96 of the CPC.

The division bench also held that the single bench misquoted the decision in Anto Mamkoottam while overruling the objections of the registry.

Reference was made by the division bench to the decision of a full bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Gurram Seetharam Reddy v Gunti Yeshodha and Another AIR 2005 AP 95 to arrive at the conclusion.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Difference Between Sale Of 'Corporate Debtor As A Going Concern' And Sale Of 'Business Of The Corporate Debtor As A Going Concern'

Citation : M.S. Viswanathan, Liquidator of Gemini Communication Limited vs Pixtronic Global Technologies Pvt. Ltd,  IA/1215/CHE/2021 in CP/699/IB/2017 Date of Judgment/Order : 15/2/22 Court/Tribunal : National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench I, Chennai Corum : R. Sucharitha, Member (Judicial), Sameer Kakar, Member (Technical) Background Application was filed by the Liquidator under Regulation 32(e) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 seeking approval from the Tribunal for sale of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern. Order Allowing the application, the NCLT went into an elaborate but useful explanation of the entire law behind the term 'Going Concern'. NCLT observed that  the term 'going concern' means all such assets and the liabilities, which constitute an integral business or the Corporate Debtor, that must be transferred together, and the consideration must be for the business or the Corporate Debtor. The buyer of the assets and liabilitie...
Post a Comment
Read more