SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1928 Supreme(SC) 40

Tejpal-jamna das – Appellant
Versus
Ernest v. David and others – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Hy. S.L. Polak, B. Dube, A.M. Dunne

Viscount Sumner. -

On the 4th August 1919 the firm Piare Lal-Basant Lal of Cawnpore, was adjudged insolvent. A receiver had been appointed, and he had, in the course of his enquiries, learned that 35 bales of cloth, believed to be identified as the property of that firm, were at the godown of the present appellants, who are the firm Tejpal-Jamna Das. He thereupon went there and attached them. At a subsequent date the present appellants made an application in the Court of the Judge of Small Causes at Cawnpore to have the bales remaining after some had been sold and the proceeds of those sold adjudged to them under a charge alleged to have been created by the insolvent firm Evidence was called at considerable length and the matter came to judgment. By that time it seems to be fairly clear that the case put forward by the appellants, as the Court understood it, was that, after dealings between the parties had continued for some time upon the basis of advances being made without any specific pledge, a time came when the bales were taken as a pawn and further bales were pawned from time to time. That, therefore, pointed to some specific date, at which and to some arrangement under which






Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top