ROSE CHIT FUNDS P LTD Vs. G VENKATACHALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition the petitioner-Chit Funds Company (hereinafter referred to as the Company) having been aggrieved by the order made by the Small Causes Judge in Execution No. 1146/1984, dated 12th April, 1985, has come up before this Court challenging the legality and correctness of that order. I have heard the learned counsel on both side and perused the order under revision. A short question that irises for consideration in this revision petition is: whether the view taken by the Court below in rejecting the petition sought to be executed holding that under the provision of Section 64 of the Chit Fund Act the petition is not maintainable would be justified.

(2.) The admitted facts as disclosed both by the order under revision and the argument sadvanced on both sides are that G. Venkatachalam and respondent herein owed a certain sum of money payable to the petitioner. The petitioner having moved this Court under the provision of Section 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) obtained an order directing the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 6,972.03 ps. payable to the Company under liquidation. There is no dispute about that. The question is whether that order could be executed as if it is a decree. The second question is that if it is a decree, could the decree be executed before the Small Causes Court in Bangalore.

(3.) To answer the first question, there is no difficulty having regard to the scope of Section 635 of the Companies Act. An order passed under Section 446(2)(b) by the competent Court could be considered as a decree which can be enforced for the purpose of realising the amount ordered to pay. Section 635 of the Companies Act for the purpose of enforcement of such an order reads as follows: