A.G. MAHAN Vs. BANK OF MYSORE LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal preferred by the Appellant and judgment -debtor against the order of the learned Second Additional District Judge, Bangalore City, allowing I. A. No. Ill in Ex. Case No. 67 of 1953 filed by the appointment of a Receiver.

(2.) THE Petitioner is the 2nd judgment -debtor and the Respondent the do are holder in Ex. Case No. 57/1953. The decree -holder filed an application as per 1A. No. III praying for tire appointment of a Receiver. This application was allowed by the learned District Judge, and as against that order this appeal is preferred.

(3.) THE jurisdiction of civil Courts to appoint Receivers in respect of properties of a Co. recognized by the High Court of Madras in the case reported in T.S. Sivaprakasa Mudaliar and Anr. Vs. K.M. Samarapuri and Others, AIR 1950 Mad 116 , by the High Court of Allahabad in the case reported in 'Raghunath Prasad v. Budam Electric Supply Co. Ltd.,' AIR 1949 All 112 (B), and by the High Court of Lahore in the case reported in - 'Ratanlal v. Jagadhvi Light Rly. Co. Ltd. AIR 1946 Lab 193 (C). In the Madras case, their Lordships have held rough the Companies Act makes provision in a Vast majority of cases for dealing with concomitances in which a company was mismanaged, the did note exclude the jurisdiction of a civil Court impunity a Receiver for a going concern. In the Allahabad case also, a Receiver was appointed for the management of the business of a company. The same view is taken by the Lahore High Court in the case cited above.