MURPHY HOUSE Vs. OFFICIAL RECEIVER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises under the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, hereinafter called the Act- The proceedings before the Court, below and the orders made disclose a total ignorance of the principles of the law of Insolvency on the part of the District Judge, Sri S. B. Sawkar.

(2.) The 7th respondent K. V. Chari, hereinafter referred to as the Debtor, presented a petition on 6-6-1973 in the Court of the District Judge, Bangalore for adjudging him an insolvent. In Schedule B of the said petition, he gave the particulars of the assets held by him. On the presentation of the petition, the District Judge ordered Gazette publication and issue of notices to the respondents. On same day on an application for the appointment of an Interim Receiver filed by the Debtor, the District Judge appointed the Official Receiver as Interim Receiver in respect of the assets shown in Schedule, B of the Insolvency Petition. On 14-6-1973 the debtor put the Official Receiver in possession of the B Schedule assets. On 2-7-73 respondent 2 in the appeal-M/s. National Radio Electronics Ltd.-filed an application (I.A.No.4) for an order directing the Interim Receiver to take change of the radio and electric equipments etc., situated in the shop premises of Mjs. Radio and Television Corporation owned by the Debtor. On the said application, the District Judge made an order on 3-7- 1973 which reads : " Heard Counsel and Official Receiver. Read affidavit. The Official Receiver is directed to take charge of the moveables in M/s. Murphy House, and the shop formely belonging to petitioner at Gupta Market, forthwith." It is relevant to observe that in I.A.No.4 there was no prayer for directing the Interim Receiver to take possession of the shop premises. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Interim Receiver took possession of the shop premises on 6-7-1973.

(3.) On 9-7-1973 the appellant before me M|s. Murphy House represented by Farook Yusuff filed I.A.No 5 before the District Judge to direct the Interim Receiver to remove the lock and deliver possession of the shop premises. In the said application the appellant stated that the Debtor had surrendered possession of the premises in the Gupta, Market to his landlord, M/s. B S. Gupta & Co., op 1-6-1973 and the said landlord had let the premises to the appellant on lease and therefore the premise were not in the possession of the Debtor on the date of the presentation of the petition for adjudication as Insolvent and the Interim Receiver had no jurisdicion to take possession of the same. Objections were filed by the Interim Receiver and the creditor-respondent 2. After hearing the parties the District Judge made the order under appeal dismissing I.A.5. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred the above appeal.