Back
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Syed Shamsul Huda, J., Fletcher, J.
Banomali Dutta & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Lalit Mohan Ghoshal - Respondent
Decided On : 04-06-1918
Insolvency - Provincial Insolvency Act - Sections 16, 28 - The court upheld the recovery of property fraudulently concealed by the insolvent debtors, finding that the property vested in the Official Receiver under Section 16 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The court approved the procedure adopted to discover and recover the property, as the Official Receiver was presumed to have concurred with the course of action.
Fact of the Case:
This is an appeal by two judgment-debtors who have been adjudicated insolvents, against the decision of the District Judge affirming the decision of the Subordinate Judge. The appeal relates to certain property that was found to have been fraudulently concealed from the creditors and the Official Receiver.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that if the property belonged to the insolvents, they were bound to disclose it, and under Section 16 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, the property vested in the Official Receiver. If the property did not belong to the insolvents, they had no right to appeal. The court presumed that the sale of the property was made with the concurrence of the Official Receiver, and if not, his rights were not interfered with as the order provided for the sale proceeds to go to his hands.
Issues: Whether the judgment-debtors had the right to appeal against the recovery of the property that was found to have been fraudulently concealed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that if the property belonged to the insolvents, they were bound to disclose it under the Provincial Insolvency Act, and if it did not belong to them, they had no right to appeal. The court approved the procedure adopted to discover and recover the property, as the Official Receiver was presumed to have concurred with the course of action.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT
Fletcher, J. - This is an appeal by two of th6 judgment-debtors, who have been adjudicated insolvents, against the decision of the learned District Judge of Hoogly, affirming the decision of the Subordinate Judge at Howrah. These judgment-debtors appeal with reference to certain property that the learned District Judge, agreeing with the Subordinate Judge, has found to have been fraudulently concealed from the creditors and the Official Receiver. That obviously they cannot do. If this property belonged to the insolvents, then they were bound to disclose it and, under the provisions of Section 16 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, that property vested in the Official Receiver. If it was not the property of the insolvents, of course, they had no right to appeal as regards thereto. In this case, if anybody has got a right of appeal, he is the Official Receiver who is quite satisfied with the means by which this decree-holder has managed to discover and recover this property from the fraudulent insolvents. The procedure that has been adopted in this cafe is not an uncommon procedure in, this country with reference to the Provincial Insolvency Act. No proper establishment bas been created in the subordinate Courts for the working of this Provincial Insolvency Act, and the practice has grown up of discovering property fraudulently retained by the insolvent by means that appear in the present case. Of course we presume that the sale in this case was made with the concurrence of the Official Receiver. If the Official Receiver did not concur in the sale, his rights are not interfered with. The order provides for the sale proceeds to go to his hands. So, presumably, he knew and approved of the course of action adopted by the decree-holder, the respondent to the appeal.
2. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs one gold mohur.
Syed Shamsul Huda, J.
3. I agree.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
