ORIGINAL JURISDICTION - Orissa High Court

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 365 110 SANJU PANDA, J. M/S.VIK ASSOCIATES & CHITS PVT. LTD.-V- M/S.ASHOK AUTOMOBILES MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL ENGINEER, BERHAMPUR.* DECEMBER 11,2009. COMPANIES ACT, 1956 (ACT NO.1 OF 1956) – SEC.635. Decree passed by Company Court – In view of Sec.635 Companies Act decree need not be transferred to another Court for execution – Decree can be filed before the Court within whose jurisdiction the judgment Debtor is residing – Section 39 C.P.C. has no application to this case – Held, learned Sub-Judge failed to exercise his jurisdiction in not executing the decree in question. For petitioner – M/s. S.D.Das, S.K.Samantaray, B.K.Kar & B.N.Udgata. For Opp.Party – None. CIVIL REVISION NO.149 OF 1990. From an order dated 24.11.1988 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge,Berhampur in E.P.No.61 of 1988. S. PANDA, J. In this civil revision, challenge has been made to the order dated 24.11.1988 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Berhampur in E.P. No.61 of 1988. 2. The facts as narrated in the civil revision are as follows: The petitioner-decree holder filed Application No.101/1982 under Section 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 in Company Petition No.27 of 1977 before the High Court of Karnatak at Banglore. On 2.6.1982, the Hon’ble Company Judge held that the case for Official Liquidator was accepted and ordered ex parte that the respondent would pay the sum of Rs.14,331.00 together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the principal sum of Rs.9,990.00 from the date of application till the date of realization. Accordingly, the said application was decreed. Further, on 3.3.1978 the Hon’ble Company Judge in Company Petition No.27 of 1977 ordered the petitioner-company to be wound up. After the aforesaid decrees were passed, those were forwarded to one Sri B. Debadan, Advocate, Berhampur for filing of execution petition in the court of the Sub-Judge, Berhampur. He filed the execution petition which was registered as E.P. No.61 of 1988. The said application was rejected on 24.11.1988 by the
111 learned Subordinate Judge on the ground that the decree holder had simply filed a certified copy of the decree to execute the same. In absence of any order for transfer of the decree in question to the court, as required under Section 39(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, the execution proceeding was not maintainable. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the executing court erred in law in holding that the procedure laid down in Section 39 of the Civil Procedure Code is to be complied with by the court which has passed the order to enforce the decree. The impugned order is otherwise illegal and if INDIAN LAW REPORTS, CUTTACK SERIES [2010] allowed to stand, it will cause irreparable loss and injury to the petitionerdecree holder. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside. 4. Earlier, notice was issued to the opposite party-judgment debtor by registered post. Thereafter, on 11.10.2007 it was published in the local Oriya daily “The Samaj”. In spite of that, the opposite party did not appear in this case. 5. It is the admitted fact that the petitioner-decree holder filed an application under Section 446 (2) (b) of the Companies Act and obtained a decree from the company court which is not a usual civil court decree. Therefore, the procedure prescribed under Section 39 of the Civil Procedure Code is that the decree is to be transferred by the court, which passed the same, to be executed out of its jurisdiction to another court in whose jurisdiction the judgment-debtor is residing. 6. Here, admittedly the judgment debtor, as per the address furnished in the company case, was staying at Berhampur. So, the learned Subordinate Judge, Berhampur had the jurisdiction to execute the decree. In view of the provisions contained in Section 635 of the Companies Act, it is not necessary to transfer the decree passed by the court to another court for its execution as the decree can be filed before the court within whose jurisdiction the judgment-debtor is residing. 7. For better appreciation, Section 635 of the Companies Act is quoted hereunder: “S.635. Enforcement of orders of one Court by other Courts. – (1) Where any order made by one Court is required to be enforced by another Court, a certified copy of the order shall be produced to the proper Officer of the Court required to enforce the order. (2) the production of such certified copy shall be sufficient evidence of the order. (3) Upon the production of such certified copy, the Court shall take the requisite steps for enforcing the order, in the same manner as if it has been made by itself.
Page 1 and 2:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 271 I.M.QUDDUSI
Page 3 and 4:
SK.IBRAHIM -V- STATE OF ORISSA [B.K
Page 5 and 6:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 275 I.M.QUDDUSI
Page 7 and 8:
MIRJA SIDDIK -V- STATE OF ORISSA ju
Page 9 and 10:
23 DILIP KUMAR RAY -V- STATE OF ORI
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 285 B.P.DAS,J &
Page 17 and 18:
NITYANANDA BEHERA -V- STATE [S.C.PA
Page 19 and 20:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 289 B.P.DAS,J &
Page 21 and 22:
ANUPAMA BEHERA -V- D.M., LIC OF IND
Page 23 and 24:
ANUPAMA BEHERA -V- D.M., LIC OF IND
Page 25 and 26:
39 13. In the case of P. J. Chacko
Page 27 and 28:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 297 L.MOHAPATRA
Page 29 and 30:
43 Court in the case of M/s. Thunga
Page 31 and 32:
45 and (c) on account of some mista
Page 33 and 34:
“ The High Court held that the re
Page 35 and 36:
49 Deputy Superintendent of Police.
Page 37 and 38:
The copy of the Station Diary dt.24
Page 39 and 40:
53 accordingly, investigation was t
Page 41 and 42:
55 lying dead with ligature mark on
Page 43 and 44:
11.40(1974) CLT.977 : (Sahadeb Patn
Page 45 and 46: comparative statement showing perfo
Page 47 and 48: 61 construed according to the plain
Page 49 and 50: 63 11. This Court in Sahadeb Pattna
Page 51 and 52: ules and regulations h) Ability to
Page 53 and 54: INDIAN LAW REPORTS, CUTTACK SERIES
Page 59 and 60: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 328 A.S.NAIDU,J
Page 63 and 64: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 332 PRADIP MOHA
Page 77 and 78: 91 impression of bias and favourtis
Page 79 and 80: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 348 M.M.DAS,J.
Page 81 and 82: 95 hearing the appeal set aside the
Page 83 and 84: 97 and the parties to the lease are
Page 85 and 86: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 354 R.N.BISWAL,
Page 87 and 88: 101 cargo, which was unfit for ship
Page 89 and 90: 103 This Section stipulates that ap
Page 91 and 92: 105 Sub-section (2) of Section 7 of
Page 93 and 94: 107 further, in the meantime also t
Page 95: 109 “…… The High Court was of
Page 99 and 100: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 368 SANJU PANDA
Page 101 and 102: 115 OLR 791 (Sk. Mustafa and anothe
Page 103 and 104: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 372 SANJU PANDA
Page 105 and 106: 119 Rs. 71,74,451/- for repair of t
Page 107 and 108: 121 reported in AIR 1989 SC 1239 (A
Page 109 and 110: 123 already quoted and the aforesai
Page 111 and 112: 125 offending truck. The further ca
Page 113 and 114: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 382 B.P.RAY,J.
Page 115 and 116: 129 to any person, or to consent th
Page 117 and 118: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 386 B.P.RAY, J.
Page 119 and 120: 133 testimony of the victim in a ca
Page 121 and 122: 135 relationship of the appellant w
Page 123 and 124: 137 Officer,Bangalore). 3.AIR 1996
Page 125 and 126: 139 restored, only to avoid the ord
Page 127 and 128: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 396 141 B.K.PAT
Page 129 and 130: 143 4.12.1997. The vehicle was insu
Page 131 and 132: 145 vehicle and insurance policy tr
Page 133 and 134: 147 place from the date of sale whe
Page 135 and 136: 149 deemed to have issued to the in
Page 137 and 138: 151 6. On an analysis of Sections 9
Page 139 and 140: 153 the policy purports to cover in
Page 141 and 142: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 410 B.K.NAYAK,
Page 143 and 144: 157 “….. The decision in the ca
Page 145 and 146: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 414 S.K.MISHRA,
Page 147 and 148:
161 the imposition of fine of Rs.50
Page 149 and 150:
163 overtuous regarding sex. Theref
Page 151 and 152:
165 6. The learned trial court, aft
Page 153 and 154:
167 The Opposite parties 2 to 11 ar
Page 155 and 156:
169 3. It is undisputed at this sta
Page 157:
shall dispose of the application on
show all

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION - Orissa High Court

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?