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

1959 Supreme(Cal) 192

GUHA, BANERJEE
Damodar Mukherjee – Appellant
Versus
Bonwabilal Agarwalla – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Manan Kumar Ghosh, Pankaj Kumar Ghose, Shyama Charan Mitter.

JUDGMENT

1. BANERJEE, J.- This appeal is directed against an order passed by the learned District Judge of Purulia, exercising jurisdiction under the Provincial Insolvency Act. By that order, the learned District Judge allowed an application by one Kaluram Lodha, alias Kalooram Marwari, for inclusion of himself as a creditor, in respect of a debt under a decree amounting to Rs. 5381/-, in a pending insolvency proceeding.

2. THERE is no dispute about the facts here in below stated. Kalooram, the father of respondent No. 1, was an assignee of a promissory note, executed by the appellants Nos. 2 and 3. He instituted a suit, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Purulia, on the said promissory note, on July 31, 1936, and obtained a decree. The debtors, who are the present appellants Nos. 2 and 3, preferred an appeal against the aforesaid decree in the Court of the District Judge at Manbhum-Singhbhum. The learned District Judge reversed the decree passed by the trial court and dismissed the claim made by Kalooram. The date of the appellate decree was June 11, 1937.

While the appeal was pending before the Court of the District Judge, three creditors, who are respondents Nos. 2 to 4 in
























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