Skip to content


K. Mangiah Chetty Vs. K. Ramiah Chetty and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1908)18MLJ565
AppellantK. Mangiah Chetty
RespondentK. Ramiah Chetty and anr.
Excerpt:
- .....this court in an appeal from the insolvency court.3. we agree with this decision. there is nothing in the insolvency rules, 1905, which has the effect of taking away this right.4. the preliminary objection is overruled.5. it seems to us that documentary evidence of considerable importance was not considered by the learned judge, and that the inquiry cannot be said to have been complete. we accordingly set aside the order of the learned judge and send the case back to the insolvency court in order that the application may be dealt with by the commissioner in insolvency. costs incurred up to date will be dealt with by the commissioner in insolvency.
Judgment:

1. A preliminary objection has been taken, that a vakil has no right of audience in appeal from an order made by the Insolvency Court.

2. This point was raised in 1889 in O.S. appeal 10 of 1888, and it was there held that a vakil had the right of audience before this Court in an appeal from the Insolvency Court.

3. We agree with this decision. There is nothing in the Insolvency Rules, 1905, which has the effect of taking away this right.

4. The preliminary objection is overruled.

5. It seems to us that documentary evidence of considerable importance was not considered by the learned Judge, and that the inquiry cannot be said to have been complete. We accordingly set aside the order of the learned Judge and send the case back to the Insolvency Court in order that the application may be dealt with by the Commissioner in Insolvency. Costs incurred up to date will be dealt with by the Commissioner in Insolvency.


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