OFFICIAL RECEIVER, TANJORE Vs. NATARAJA SASTRIAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the Official Receiver of the Tanjore district. He appeals against the order of the District Judge of East Tanjore appointing a Special Receiver in Insolvency Petition No. 3 of 1921 instead of the Official Receiver, in whom the insolvent's property would ordinarily vest under Section 57 of Act V/s. of 1920. It appears that when the adjudication of insolvency was made, the District Judge vested the property in the Official Receiver on the 26 July 1922. The next day, at the instance of the vakil for some of the insolvents, the District Judge reconsidered his order and substituted "Special Receiver" for "the Official Receiver" in his order. Section 57, Clause (2) permits the Court to make such an order for special reasons The Official Receiver moved the Court to reconsider this second order, but the District Judge declined to do so on the 15 August 1922.

(2.) In these appeals a number of points have been raised on either side. It is contended that the Official Receiver is not entitled to appeal under Section 75 and that, oven if he is so entitled, the Court has given good easons for appointing a Special Receiver in the present case, and that we should not interfere with the District Judgo's discretion. On the other hand, the appellant contends that the Court having passed a final order on the 26 of July had no power under the Provincial Insolvency Act to review that order; secondly, that the rules framed under the Madras Provincial Insolvency Act, which have the effect of law by virtue of Section 79, Clause (3), give no power to a Court to remove an Official Receiver once appointed (vide rule 12); and, lastly, that the reasons given by the District Judge for appointing a Special Receiver are not sufficient reasons for making an exception to the general rule.

(3.) On the first point it is clear from Section 75 that the Official Receiver is one of the persons who has a right of appeal if he is aggrieved by the order of a Court acting in its insolvency jurisdiction. Official Assignee of Madras V/s. Ramachandra Iyer (1910) I.L.R., 33 Mad., 134, affords an instance where the Official Assignee, who stands in a similar position to the Official Receivers in the mufassal, was regarded as a person "aggrieved" and was permitted to appeal. That case proceeded largely on the authority of an English case Ex parte Sidebotham, In re Sidebotham(1880) 14 Oh.D., 458. It appears from the notes at page 459 that the question of the removal of the trustee was one of the matters that came up for consideration, and the learned Judges declared that a trustee in bankruptcy would be entitled to appeal from an order of the Court if he thought it unjust and that he would be a person "aggrieved" if a decision had been pronounced which had wrongfully refused him something to which he was entitled. I hold therefore that the appellant has a right of appeal.