Mohamadu Cassim V. Perianan Chetty

Present: Lascelles C.J. and Middleton J.   June.20,1911

In re the Insolvency of MOHAMADU CASSIM.

MOHAMADU CASSIM v. PERIANAN CHETTY.

79-D. C. Kandy, 1,571.

Insolvency-Motion by insolvent to expunge debt after the appointment of assignee-Practice-Power of Judge to inquire into validity of judgment obtained by fraud-Summons-Service of summons on one partner after dissolution of partnership-Judgment obtained without service of summons null and void.

Before the close of the first sitting in insolvency proceedings one P. tendered proof of a debt. The insolvent did not admit the debt, but proof was admitted without further inquiry. Subsequently, after the appointment of assignee, the insolvent moved to have the debt expunged.

Held, the procedure of moving to expunge a debt is not open to the insolvent, but only to the assignee or to two creditors under section 110 of Ordinance No. 7 of 1853. The proper course would have been to have inquired into the bankrupt's objection at the time when it was made, or, at any rate, before the appointment of the assignee.

But a practice has grown up in our Courts under which debts are admitted to p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document