9911796707
TMI Blog1934 (1) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omissory notes. The respondent had also claimed in respect of a mortgage debt of ₹ 4,000, but it is now admitted that it had been satisfied. 2. Prior to the application by the respondent to be added in the schedule of debts, which was filed on January 30, 1931, and out of which the pre sent appeal arises, the appellant had made an application under Section 54 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, dated April 6, 1929, against the present respondent, asking that the payment by the insolvents to her of a sum of ₹ 19,000 within three months of the petition for adjudication should be declared fraudulent and void and that the present respondent should be ordered to pay the amount to him. After an enquiry, the District Court annulled the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Provincial Insolvency Act the decision of the District Court was final, subject only to a limited right of appeal to the High Court under Section 75(2), any right of further appeal being thereby excluded. But, in their Lordships' opinion, this objection is not maintainable, in view of the decision of this Board in Secretary of State for India v. Chelikani Rama Rao, in which a similar objection was taken in respect of the provisions of the Madras Forest Act of 1882, and it was held that, when such a right of appeal is given to one of the ordinary Courts of the country, the procedure, orders and decrees of that Court will be governed by the ordinary rules of the Civil Procedure Code. 5. At the first hearing of the appeal their Lord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly one of fact. It is unnecessary to review the evidence in detail; it is fully dealt with in the judgments of the lower Courts. It is sufficient to say that the appellant has failed to satisfy their Lordships that the High Court has come to a wrong conclusion, and it becomes unnecessary to consider the further contention of the respondent that the decision of the Courts in the earlier proceedings forms res judicata on the question of the particular indebtedness in respect of which the present application is made. 7. Their Lordships will, therefore, humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal should be dismissed, and that the decree of the High Court dated January 18, 1932, should be affirmed, the appellant to pay the respondent her costs in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
