Skip to content


Abdulla Jan Khan and anr. Vs. B. Parbati Nath and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1945All213
AppellantAbdulla Jan Khan and anr.
RespondentB. Parbati Nath and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....is an application in revision under section 75, provincial insolvency act, against an order of the learned district judge of moradabad whereby he set aside the order of the insolvency judge dated 21st march 1941. the facts briefly are these:one mr. gregory borrowed a sum of rupees 6000 from a man named mohammad wali khan on the basis of a promissory note. gregory was declared an insolvent and mohammad wali khan went to the receiver for the recognition of his claim. his nephew abdulla jan was produced as a witness to prove the claim. the latter claimed himself to be the true obligee and represented his uncle as benamidar. he, however, proved the due execution and consideration. on this evidence, the receiver rejected the claim of mohammad wali khan. this order was challenged in appeal.....
Judgment:

Sinha, J.

1. This is an application in revision under Section 75, Provincial Insolvency Act, against an order of the learned District Judge of Moradabad whereby he set aside the order of the insolvency Judge dated 21st March 1941. The facts briefly are these:

One Mr. Gregory borrowed a sum of Rupees 6000 from a man named Mohammad Wali Khan on the basis of a promissory note. Gregory was declared an insolvent and Mohammad Wali Khan went to the receiver for the recognition of his claim. His nephew Abdulla Jan was produced as a witness to prove the claim. The latter claimed himself to be the true obligee and represented his uncle as benamidar. He, however, proved the due execution and consideration. On this evidence, the receiver rejected the claim of Mohammad Wali Khan. This order was challenged in appeal before the learned insolvency Judge. The learned Judge allowed the appeal and directed the receiver to dispose of the claim on the merits. The receiver preferred an appeal against this order of the insolvency Judge before the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge held that Abdulla Jan had no locus standi to go in appeal before the learned insolvency Judge, inasmuch as he was not the man in whose name the promissory note stood nor was he the man who had gone to the receiver to prove his claim. He therefore set aside the order of the insolvency Judge and dismissed the appeal of Abdulla Jan preferred before him. The view of the learned Judge that Abdulla Jan had no locus standi to go in appeal before the learned insolvency Judge was, to our mind, in the teeth of the provisions of Section 68, Provincial Insolvency Act, which authorizes among others 'a person aggrieved by any act or decision of the receiver' to prefer an appeal. That on the evidence Abdulla Jan was the true beneficiary under the promissory note and was, therefore, aggrieved, there can be no manner of doubt. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the order under revision is wrong and must be set aside. The learned District Judge has directed Abdulla Jan to pay the Official Receiver the costs of his Court as also those of the learned insolvency Judge. We do not think that this is a correct order. We, therefore, allow this application, set aside the order of the learned Judge and restore that of the learned insolvency Judge dated 2lst March 1941 with costs throughout.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //