KAJAL GAN Vs. HAZARA KHATUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters patent appeal has arisen out of the judgment and order, dated 14-5-2001, passed in F. A. No. 197 of 1996, whereby the appeal has been dismissed and the order, dated 2-7-1999, passed by the learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, in Civil Misc. (Insolvency) Case No. 1 of 1996, has been upheld.

(2.) The material facts giving rise to this Letters Patent appeal may be noted as follows : By an award, passed in Title Suit (MAC) 5 of 1986, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Tripura, directed the present appellant, as owner of the offending vehicle, to pay Rs. 1,70,000/- as compensation to the claimant. As the compensation, so awarded, was not paid to the claimant, a recovery proceeding was initiated. On receiving the repeated notices for payment of the said compensation amount with the interest, which had accrued thereon, the appellant herein, made an application under Section 7 read with Section 10 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, seeking to be declared an insolvent and for absolving him from liability to pay the amount due under the said award. By order, dated 2-7-1996, passed in the Insolvency Proceeding, which had given rise to Civil Misc. (Insolvency) Case No. 9 of 1974, the learned District Judge, South Tripura, held to the effect that since the said recovery case stood registered with the Certificate officer, Udaipur, which falls under the territorial jurisdiction of the District Judge, South Tripura, the Court of the District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, had no territorial jurisdiction to decide the application filed by the present appellant seeking to be declared insolvent and that the application for insolvency be returned to the petitioner appellant so that the same can be filed in the Court of competent jurisdiction. Against the dismissal of his said application, the appellant preferred an appeal under Section 75 read with Sections 4 and 11 of the said Act. This appeal came to be registered as F. A. No. 179 of 1996 aforementioned. By the order, dated 14-5-2001, the learned single Judge has held to the effect that since in MAC Case No. 5/86, the present appellant had already contested the claim proceedings and had surrendered to the jurisdiction of the Court at South Tripura and the award had been passed after according hearing to the parties concerned and that the recovery proceeding was also pending within the district of South Tripura, the learned District Judge, West Tripura, had acted legally and justifiably in returning the application to be filed in an appropriate Court. The conclusions, so reached by the learned Single Judge, are under challenge in the present appeal.

(3.) We have heard Mr. B. Das, learned senior Advocate, appearing for the appellant. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents.