1945 (11) TMI 15

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ) of the Act were sent to all creditors and to the debtor within the time laid down by Rule 21(3). The date fixed for the hearing of the petition was 9th February, 1944. For some reason or another the actual hearing was apparently postponed until the 24th March, 1944, when an order of adjudication was passed. In the meantime, on 29th February, 1944, an amendment to Rule 21, Sub-rule 3 had been made making Rule 21(3) read to the effect that notices of the date fixed for the hearing of an insolvency petition must be served not only on the creditors and the debtor but also on any transferee, the transfer in whose favour is alleged to be an act of insolvency within the meaning of clauses (a), (b) or (c) of Section 6 of the Act. 3. The order .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to alterations in procedure, somewhat different principles apply. As is said in Janakinath Singha Roy v. Nirodbaran Ray (1929) I.L.R. 57 Cal. 148 at p. 152 : No person has any vested interest in procedure and it is well settled that matters of procedure apply to a pending suit if the law is changed during.the pendency of the suit. 6. In Gopeshwar Pal v. Tibanchandra Chandra (1914) I.L.R. 41 Cal. 1125 at 1141 it is stated by a Full Bench: The law as amended may regulate the procedure in suits in which the plaintiff could comply with its provisions, but cannot (in our opinion) govern suits where such compliance was from the first impossible. The effect is to regulate not to confiscate. 7. The general principle, I think, is that t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... comes into operation and there is nothing in his judgment to indicate that he considered that the effect of a proceeding already had and concluded would be altered by a statute annexing greater or less effect to a similar proceeding taken subsequently to the statute. 10. With regard to the alterations in procedure, Maxwell concedes at page 199 as follows: The general principle, however, seems to be that alterations in procedure are retrospective unless there be some good reason against it, 11. And again at page 200 he says: A new procedure would be presumably inapplicable, where its application would prejudice rights established under the old. 12. On the facts of this case, the petitioner filed his petition in full accordance .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X