Appeal from the Judgments dated April 25, and May 1, 1950, of the High Court of Judicature for Patiala and East Punjab States Union at Patiala Teja Singh J. and Chopra J. in T. P. A. R. I. A. O. No.
On 2nd February, 1950, the firm Murari Lal Hari Ram, appellant in Civil Appeal No.
167 and 167 A of 1951.
34 of 1950 and Civil Appeals Nos.
This was on 6th December, 1949.
The reference in the order to the case of Ganpat Rai Hira Lal v. Aggarwal Chamber of Commerce Ltd., L.P. A. Nos.
The firm applied to him for a certificate for leave to appeal, but this again was dismissed.
In this case it is admitted that the appellants made an application for a certificate to the Single Bench, from whose decision he is appealing, but the same was refused.
493/494 of Samwat 2005.
There, an appeal was lodged from the payment order of the Liquidation Judge, but it was dismissed on the same ground, namely, want of a certificate from the Single Judge.
493 and 494 of Samvat 2005 Pepsu is to the order made by the High Court in the companynected matter which has given rise to the two Appeals Nos.
Rang Behari Lal Ram Nivas Sanghi, with him for the appellants in Civil Appeals Nos.
This order is dated 1st May, 1950, and is companyched in these, terms We have recently held in Ganpat Rai Hira Lal v. Aggarwal Chamber of Commerce, Ltd., L.P.A. Nos.
The appeal is.
On further appeal taken by the companypany, the Judicial Committee, Patiala, remanded the case for retrial, and the Liquidation Judge made an order for payment of Rs.
This application was dismissed by the learned Judge on 16th March, 1950.
493 and 494 of Samvat 2005 Pepsu that numberappeal lies from an order of a Single Bench to a Division Bench without a certificate by the Single Judge that the case is a fit one for further appeal.
167 and 167 A. Udai Bhan Chaudhuri for the appellant in Civil Appeal No.
21,805 7 3.
24,005 7 3.
24,005 7 3 was taken as due by the firm instead of the companyrect figure of Rs.
152 of 1951 and the Aggarwal Chamber of Commerce Ltd., in the other two appeals .
152 of 1951, filed an application under section 152, Civil Procedure Code, for amendment of the order of the Liquidation judge, Kartar Singh J., alleging that there was a clerical or arithmetical error arising from an accidental slip or omission in that a sum of Rs.
Lachhman Das Kaushal for the respondent in Civil Appeals Nos.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
An appeal was preferred from the order dismissing the amendment petition, but it was thrown out on the ground of want of a certificate from the Single Judge.
152, 167 and 167 A of 1951.
The companyrectness and the validity of the payment order in Civil Appeal No.
167 and 167 A. Ram Nivas Sanghi for the respondent in Civil Appeal No.
October 24.
The order of the Liquidation Judge was modified in favour of the Liquidator, and as against a sum of Rs.
4,762 13 3 ordered to be paid, there was an order for the payment of Rs.
152 of 1951 and on 18th January, 1949, in the latter two appeals.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR J. These appeals are companynected and raise a companymon question of law.
They companye before us on special leave granted by the Pepsu High Court at Patiala under sub clause e of clause 1 of article 133 of the Constitution, The facts in Civil Appeal No.
152 of 1951 are different from those in the other two appeals, and the companysequences are different also.
The proceedings arise out of the liquidation of two companypanies called the Marwari Chamber of Commerce Ltd., in Civil Appeal No.
152 of 1951 was challenged in appeals taken to the High Court by the Official Liquidator and the companytributory.
The Official Liquidator settled the list of companytributories, and after various steps taken before the Liquidation Judge of the High Court by way of objection on grounds of law as well as on merits, there were payment orders on 4th June, 1946, in Civil Appeal No.
On further appeal by the companytributory to the Judicial Committee, it was held that the appeal to the Division Bench was barred by time, and companysequently the judgment of the Bench was set aside, and that of the Liquidation Judge restored.
8,191 0 9 on 18th January, 1949, as aforesaid.
In the other two appeals, an application for removal of the name of the companytributory was granted by the Liquidation Judge, but on appeal a Division Bench of the High Court reversed this order.
