TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (8) TMI 324
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... I heard learned counsel on both sides and perused the order under revision. A short question that arises for consideration in this revision petition is : whether the view taken by the court below in rejecting the petition sought to be executed holding that, under the provisions of section 64 of the Chit Funds Act, the petition is not maintainable would be justified. The admitted facts as disclosed both by the order under revision and the arguments advanced on both sides are that G. Venkatachalam and the respondent-herein owed a certain sum of money payable to the petitioner. The petitioner having moved this court under the provisions of section 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), obtained an orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) shall, as far as may be, apply to every such order in the same manner and to the same extent as they apply to an order made by a court." Pursuant to the order made by this court, a certified copy of the order made by this court was sought to be executed before the Small Causes Court in Execution No. 1146 of 1984 against the respondents, Venkatacha-lam and another. An objection was raised on behalf of the respondent-herein, one of the judgment-debtors, that, in view of the provisions of section 64 of the Chit Funds Act, that court had no jurisdiction to execute the order. Having regard to the plea put forward before the executing court, the following two questions came to be raised : (1)Whether this court has jurisdiction to enter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt. Indeed, by a perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the learned Small Causes Judge, in spite of considering the relevant question involved in the execution proceedings, he having dealt with section 63 of the Chit Funds Act and the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1980, reached the conclusion against the decree-holder thereby resulting in the dismissal of the execution petition. Sri Shankarappa, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, however, submitted that in so far as the initial jurisdiction for the purpose of executing the order made under section 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act is concerned there may not be difficulty that the court before which the order sought to be executed (sic). However, his submission is that havin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n to execute the decree. As I have already noticed in the earlier paragraphs, for the purpose of treating the order made by this court on the company side to be a decree for the purpose of the same being executed to recover the money ordered to be recovered and that whether that court has jurisdiction to do so (sic). I have already held that, in view of the provision of section 635 of the Companies Act, any order made by the company court under section 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act must be treated as a decree for the purpose of recovering the money ordered to be recovered in favour of the company. Therefore, there may not be any difficulty in reaching that conclusion as to the question of jurisdiction of that court, both pecuniary as well ....