AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(1) This is a very unfortunate case where Sri A. Ramalinga Reddy previously a zamindar had to be adjudicated insolvent. He was also granted an
order of discharge but allowing some proceedings pending u/s 53 of the Presidency Town Insolvency Act to continue. Those proceedings were
successful, and as a result the sales which were the subject matter of the proceedings were set aside and against the initial amount of Rs.6736
mentioned in the sale deeds the official Assignee was able top realise assume of Rupees 24,330. Further sums were also realised from one of the
court action-purchasers by way of mesne profits. The Official Assignee concedes that in all those proceedings the insolvent was diligently assisting
him and was mainly responsible for the success of the proceedings. As a result of the enlarged collections besides the initial dividend of 42 paise in
the rupee there are funds now available with the Official Assignee enough to pay the creditors a sum of at least 38 paise in the rupee according to
the report of the Official Assignee, though the insolvent would say that 50 paise more could be paid.
(2) Unfortunately the insolvent has been a victim of tuberculosis and his wife. Maragathammal, has also had a paralytic stock. Before the order of
discharge this court granted him a sum of Rs.2750 towards his maintenance and medical expenses. After his discharge a further sum of Rs.1000
was paid on 28-11-1962 for the medical expenses of the insolvent and his wife. In this application he prays a further allowance of Rs.2500 for
treatment of his tuberculosis which has relapsed and the treatment of his wife. There can be no doubt that the case requires absolutely sympathetic
consideration, and the only question which has to some extent troubled me is the question of jurisdiction of this court, which is the translation in
other terms of the objection raised by the Official Assignee that this application is not maintainable.
(3) Section 75(2) of the Act says that the court may, for time to time, make such allowance as it thinks just to the insolvent out of his property for
the support of the insolvent and his family, or in consideration of his service, if he is engaged in winding up his estate, but any such allowance may
at any time be varied or determined by the Court. The objection about the maintainability of the petitioner seems to be based on the ground that
since the insolvent had been discharged, he can no longer be called an insolvent, and, therefore Section 75(2) will not strictly apply. But that is only
a technical view of the matter. The substantial view is that though the insolvent was discharged, the proceedings u/s 53 of the Act were allowed to
continue, and it was because of this circumstances the Official Assignee has been enabled to realise further some. Once we arrive at the position,
the principle of Section 75(2) could well be extended so as to vest jurisdiction in this Court to grant further sums to the insolvent and his family for
their support or in consideration of the insolvent''s services, particularly when it is conceded that the insolvent actively assisted in the realisation of
these further assets after the order of discharge. Section 151 C.P.C. made applicable by Section 90 will also come into play. It is a question of
doing substantial justice to the insolvent and his wife. There is also the precedent of this court dated 28th November 1962 though there was no
detailed discussion.
(4) Accordingly I direct the Official Assignee to pay a sum of Rs.2500 to the insolvent for the purposes mentioned above.
(5) Order accordingly.