9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Competency of the appeal under Section 4(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act. 2. Verification of the indebtedness of the insolvent to the respondent. 3. Consideration of the decision in earlier proceedings as res judicata. Analysis: 1. The appellant, acting as a receiver, appealed against a decree that added the respondent as a creditor in the estate of the insolvents. The respondent claimed sums in relation to promissory notes and a mortgage debt, which was later acknowledged as satisfied. The appellant had previously challenged a payment made to the respondent, which was annulled by the District Court and upheld by the High Court, leading to the present application by the respondent. 2. The respondent asserted that the payment was for paddy stored in her godown, supported by evidence from the earlier proceedings. The District Judge had annulled the order for adjudication, but the High Court reversed this decision. The main issue revolved around proving the indebtedness of the insolvent to the respondent, with the credibility of witnesses being crucial. The District Judge found the evidence unreliable, while the High Court held a contrary view, emphasizing the factual nature of the inquiry. 3. The appellant raised a preliminary objection regarding the appeal's competency under the Provincial Insolvency Act. However, this objection was deemed unsustainable by the Privy Council, citing a precedent that established the applicability of ordinary civil procedure rules to appeals from ordinary courts. The Privy Council ultimately dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decree and ordering the appellant to bear the respondent's costs in the appeal. The decision rested on the failure to demonstrate an erroneous view by the High Court on the factual question of indebtedness, rendering further consideration of the res judicata argument unnecessary.
|
