9911796707
TMI Blog1903 (5) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndicherry Court; and on September 23 the insolvency was declared to have effect retrospectively from January 8, 1896, which was anterior to the plaintiff's judgment, and indeed to the commencement of the action in which it was obtained. In the insolvency proceedings syndics were appointed as usual, and the plaintiff applied for payment out of the estate; but it does not appear that he obtained payment of any dividend. 2. On October 8, 1896, this action was commenced in the District Court of South Arcot, which is in the Madras Presidency, and near Pondicherry. The action was by the same plaintiff against the same defendant, Murugasa Chetty, and was based on the judgment already obtained against him in Pondicherry. The receiver appoint ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of This Court on the date when cause of action arose? III. Was the French judgment on which the suit has been brought according to French law null and void on the date of suit, and is the present claim based on the French judgment, therefore, not sustainable in This Court? IV. Is it open to the defendant to raise the contention in this suit that the promissory note on which the French judgment was passed was obtained from the defendant by the plaintiff fraudulently? V. And, if so, was the promissory note obtained by the plaintiff from the defendant fraudulently? VI. What is the relief, if any, that the plaintiff is entitled to? The parties were directed to file all the documents they relied on; and French law books might be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as commenced, and he therefore found the third issue for the plaintiff. He decided that it was not competent for him to go behind the French judgment, and this disposed of the fourth and fifth issues. He found, however, as a fact that the defendant did carry on business in British India, namely, in Cuddalore, where the action was commenced, and he accordingly gave judgment for the plaintiff with costs. 9. The defendant appealed from this decision to the High Court at Madras, which reversed the judgment and dismissed the action with costs, on the ground, first, that it was not proved that the defendant did in fact carry on business in British India when the action was commenced; and on the further ground that the insolvency proceedings we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fendant was by his agent carrying on business in Cuddalore or some other place within the jurisdiction of the Court. The burden of proving this is clearly on the plaintiff; he has given evidence himself and called witnesses, and his and their evidence, until carefully examined, seems sufficient to establish such trading, especially as the defendant was within reach and was not called to deny or explain their statements. This omission was naturally made the most of by the appellant's counsel. But it must be remembered that the defendant was a bankrupt and in great difficulties, and was naturally very reluctant to expose himself to a long and hostile cross-examination. After carefully considering the evidence their Lordships have come to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
