·- t+ 3 In the Higb. Court of Judicature of Travancore-Cochin; Before ·their Lordships The Hon'ble Justice Shri K. Sankaran & The hon'bie Justice hri K.8.Govinda Pillai. A.S. No. 6 of 19530 --------- M.P.No.355/1125 in• I.,P.No.21/1121 on the file of the District Court of Anjikaimal. Appellant: Sree Poor4nathraye¢sa Vilasam Bank Ltd., irnakulam. By Advocates Sbri T.S.Venkiteswara Iyer & C.S.Ananthakrishna Iyer. Respondents: 1. Kadir, -son of Chovariatl!_, Tburavoo1' Pakuthy Sher- tal lai Taluk. (died)~ (H~irs are impleaded as res- pondents 3 to 6). 2. The Official Recei~er; Anjikaimal District Court. dd1.Respondents. $. ariomtied tr son of chalakkgl !gdir,Paojnjattumkara Vadakkum Muri, Thuravoor Pakuthy, S ertallai. 4. Kunji Pathumma wife of deceased 1st respondent of do. 5. Khadija Ummadaughter of deceased lst g respondent, residing in ·vattathumuriparambil, Thrikkanarvattom Desom, Ernakglam. 6. Nelissa daughter of deceased 1st respondent, resid- ing in Puthenveedu, - Vadakkumbhagom,Mur i, Shertal lai. Addl•respondents 3 to 6 have been impleaded as per order on G.M.P.325/53 dated 27.2.1953. Respondents_ .3 to 6 by Advocate Shri A. V .,1v1oothedan. · This appeal having been,fina11y heard on 29.7.1953 the court on the same day.delivered the foliowing Judgment. The 1st counter-petitioner in I.P.21/1121 on the file \ of the Anjikaimal District Court has preferred this appeal against that court's order giving sanction applied for · in M.P.355/1125 file~ by the assignee of the 2nd counter (petitioner. The matter had come up before this court t on a prior occasion in A. S. 26/ 1950 and by tbe judgment in that appeal the case was remanded to the lower court with the specific direction that the-court should first . consider whether the petition comes under section 53 or 54 of the Cochin Inso'lv·ency Act and then to consider .the t,to.· sst.Registrar, for @gistrar. (Sd) K. bankaran,_ Judge. (d) K..Govinda Pillai, Judge. _( True copy) 29th July 1953. . . the order under appeal is set aside and the case is again remanded to the lower court for fresh disposal as per tbe above direction. Ni order as to the costs of this appeal. that point alone he has to succeed in the appeal. There was no justification for the lower court to ignore or act con- trary to the_clear and specific direction contained in the . . ~ remand order. It was. the duty of that court/to act up to that · direction and to consider first the question whether the al- legations in M.P.355 are such as to bring the petition with- in sections 53 or~4 of th~ Insolvency Act and in the light of the conclusion regarding that matter, to proceed to con- sider and decide the question whether the sanction applied for under section 54-A has to De given or not. accordingly -2- quest ion whether the sanction under sect ion 54 should be· . given. All the same it is seen that the lower court has de- <• ferred the first question for consideration and decision to a~ater stage and in the meanwhile has given the sanction ap- plied for. In the present appeal the main objection raised is tbrn: to such a procedure adopted by the iower court. ·We think that the appellant's'I« objeotion is wellfeunded and on ', . ' .. L r' I $ L f 7