Skip to content


K.P.S. Karuthan Chettiar Vs. R.M.M. Raman Chetty - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in97Ind.Cas.590
AppellantK.P.S. Karuthan Chettiar
RespondentR.M.M. Raman Chetty
Cases ReferredIyappa Nainar v. Manikka Asari
Excerpt:
provincial insolvency act (v of 1920), section 35 - annulment of adjudication, conditions necessary for. - .....of adjudication was wrong. in order to show that, it must be proved that the act of insolvency on which the order was based did not really exist. this has not been done and the judge has rightly dismissed the application. bo far as taking penal action is concerned there is little more than suspicion against the insolvent and the judge has rightly declined to take any penal action. the appeal is dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

1. A preliminary objection is taken on the strength of the decision in Iyappa Nainar v. Manikka Asari 27 Ind. Cas. 241 that no appeal lies in this case. That decision was one under the Insolvency Act of 1907 and it is argued that it is not applicable to the present Act which is somewhat different, in form. It is, however, unnecessary to decide this question as we think that on the merits the appeal must fail. The District Judge has dismissed the appellant's application (1) to annul the insolvency adjudication and (2) to take action against him under Section 69. In order to obtain an order for annulment it must be shown that the order of adjudication ought not to have been made. The only allegation put forward by the appellant is that the insolvent was in possession of accounts in 1907 and when he was adjudicated in 1914, he alleged that he had no accounts at all. Even if the insolvent's statement was false it does not necessarily follow that the order of adjudication was wrong. In order to show that, it must be proved that the act of insolvency on which the order was based did not really exist. This has not been done and the Judge has rightly dismissed the application. Bo far as taking penal action is concerned there is little more than suspicion against the insolvent and the Judge has rightly declined to take any penal action. The appeal is dismissed with costs.


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