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

1932 MarsdenLR 112

MUDIE
RE H A PEREIRA; EX PARTE PAGOR SINGH (BHAGAT SINGH) – Appellant
Versus
. – Respondent


Advocates:
For the debtor - SK Dass

JUDGMENT

Mudie J:

This is an application to set aside a Bankruptcy Notice on the ground that an order was subsequently made for payment of the judgment debt by instalments.

The Bankruptcy Notice was issued on 30 June 1932, and served on the debtor on 7 July 1932. The order for payment by instalments was made on 5 July 1932.

It is argued for the applicant that as long as the order for payment of the debt by instalments is in force, execution on the judgment will not be issued, Montgomery & Co. v. De Blumes [1898] 2 QB 420 and a Bankruptcy Notice on the judgment will not issue.

The respondent contends that when the Bankruptcy Notice was issued, it was a good notice, and is not invalidated by an order subsequently made for payment by instalments.

The ground of the judgment in Montgomery & Co. v. De Blumes is that the judgment was modified by the order for payment by instalments. Chitty LJ in the course of his judgment says 'It seems to me that so long as the country Court Judge's order stands there is a modification of the order of the High Court; and it would involve a great injustice to a defendant if it were not so. The defendant is told that he is to pay by instalments, and t

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