RAMCHANDRA Vs. RAMCHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The question referred to the Pull Bench is stated in the following terms: An insolvency Court, acting under the power conferred by Section 53, Provincial Insolvency Act, annulled a transfer of property. The District Court, on appeal confirmed this order. Does a second appeal lie to the High Court?

(2.) THE reason for making this reference was that the practice of this Court has not been uniform.

(3.) MR . Kathalay, who urges that the question should be answered in the affirmative, contends that the decision of a Pull Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Anwar Khan v. Muhammad Khan supports him. The Judges who tried that case were considering an entirely different question, namely, the power of an insolvency Court to consider the validity of a transfer which was excluded from the purview of Section 53, Insolvency Act. Dalai, J., expressed the opinion that Section 53 merely laid down rules of evidence under, which an insolvency Court is directed to draw an absolute and irrebuttable presumption like the one contained in Section 112, Evidence Act (vide p. 556): but it does not appear that the other Judges approved" of this view. King, J., at p. 572 stated: In my opinion Sections 51 to 55 do not restrict, or purport to restrict, the wide jurisdiction conferred by Section 4(1). They merely enact rules which define the effect of insolvency upon antecedent transactions and which must be followed by insolvency Courts whenever the rules are applicable.