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

1919 Supreme(All) 35

STUART, WALSH
L. Ram Chander Sarup – Appellant
Versus
Munshi Mazhar Hussain – Respondent


JUDGMENT

1. This is a plain case. The question arises as to whether the present appellant is now in a position under the law to establish what he claims to be the true amount of his debt, namely, some Rs. 6,000 odd. It was stated originally at about that amount by the debtor. In 1913, the creditor himself, who ought to know better than anybody else, stated the amount at Rs. 3,418 odd and supported that claim by affidavit, at which amount it was allowed. He now says that it was a mistake.

2. No doubt the Insolvency Court has the same jurisdiction that the ordinary Courts of law possess under the CPC to correct any mistake either of a clerk or of the parties themselves upon a question of fact, when a mistake is established. It would appear that this creditor took three years or a little less to discover this serious error. But having discovered it, he applied to the Insolvency Court to rectify the amount of his debt in the Schedule. Whether without extending the 21 days which is given for such applications by the Act, the Court could entertain the application itself on proper grounds after being satisfied that there had been a genuine oversight and that it had only just been discovered

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