1924 (5) TMI 5 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for dismissal of appeal and payment to plaintiff's attorneys.
2. Stay of execution and deposit of decretal amount.
3. Adjudication of appellants as insolvents and refusal to prosecute appeal.
4. Ownership of the deposited sum in insolvency proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The plaintiff respondents filed an application seeking the dismissal of the appeal and a directive for the Registrar to pay Rs. 21,850 along with any accrued interest to their attorneys. The plaintiffs had initially obtained a decree for this sum on the Original Side of the Court.

2. The defendants, appellants in this case, had preferred an appeal to the High Court and requested a stay of execution. A consent order was issued, requiring the appellants to deposit the decretal amount of Rs. 21,850 into Court by a specified date to secure the stay of execution, which they complied with.

3. Subsequently, the appellants were declared insolvents before the payment of the taxed bill of costs. The attorneys for the plaintiffs notified the Official Assignee about the insolvency and inquired about the continuation of the appeal. The Official Assignee expressed inability to provide security for costs or prosecute the appeal, leading to the dismissal of the appeal with costs.

4. The Official Assignee contended that the deposited sum belonged to the insolvents and should be available for distribution among creditors under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909. However, the Court held that the amount paid into Court was the property of the plaintiff respondents, pending the outcome of the appeal, and did not vest in the Official Assignee for the benefit of creditors. Citing legal precedents, the Court determined that the deposited sum was subject to the success of the appeal and should be paid to the plaintiff's attorneys.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the appeal with costs, including the costs of the application, to be provable in the insolvency proceedings. Additionally, the Registrar was directed to pay Rs. 21,850 along with accrued interest to the plaintiff respondents' attorneys. Both the Chief Justice and the other Judge on the bench concurred with this decision.