Abdool and ors. Vs. Mahamed

Abdool and ors. vs Mahamed

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Feb 23, 1891

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/780615

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/780615
Court: Chennai
Judge: Muttusami Ayyar and ;Parker, JJ.
Decided On: Feb 23, 1891
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Insolvent Act - 11 & 12 Vict., cap. 21, Sections 72 and 73--Appeal--Limitation--Evidence. - - 3. It has been so held in several cases--by this Court in Best & Co.

Key legal issue: Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Abdool and ors.

Respondent

Mahamed

Legal References

Cases Referred: and Kalliandas Kirparam v. Trikamlal Gulabrai
Reported In: (1891)ILR14Mad404

Excerpt

insolvent act - 11 & 12 vict., cap. 21, sections 72 and 73--appeal--limitation--evidence. - - 3. it has been so held in several cases--by this court in best & co.1. two preliminary objections are taken.2. as to limitation we observe that the appeal time expired during the annual vacation of the high court, and the appeal petition was presented on the first day the court re-opened. it is, therefore, in time--reference under forest act v of 1882 i.l.r., 10 mad., 210.2. the next objection is that no evidence was recorded under section 72 of the insolvent act, and under section 73 we are not at liberty to refer to the notes of evidence taken by the learned commissioner.3. it has been so held in several cases--by this court in best & co. v. kaliana chetti appeal no. 36 of 1880, unreported and by the high court of calcutta in re ajudhia prasad 7 b.l.r. 74, and by the bombay high court in re lakhmidas hanzraj 5 bom. h.c.r., 63 and kalliandas kirparam v. trikamlal gulabrai 9 bom. h.c.r. 307.4.the second objection must be allowed.5. the appellants' vakil admits that unless he is permitted to refer to the notes of evidence, he cannot support the appeal. the appeal, therefore, fails, and we must dismiss it with costs.6. wilson and king, attorneys for respondent.

Full Judgment

1. Two preliminary objections are taken.

2. As to limitation we observe that the appeal time expired during the annual vacation of the High Court, and the appeal petition was presented on the first day the Court re-opened. It is, therefore, in time--Reference under Forest Act V of 1882 I.L.R., 10 Mad., 210.

2. The next objection is that no evidence was recorded under Section 72 of the Insolvent Act, and under Section 73 we are not at liberty to refer to the notes of evidence taken by the learned Commissioner.

3. It has been so held in several cases--by this Court in Best & Co. v. Kaliana Chetti Appeal No. 36 of 1880, unreported and by the High Court of Calcutta in re Ajudhia Prasad 7 B.L.R. 74, and by the Bombay High Court in re Lakhmidas Hanzraj 5 Bom. H.C.R., 63 and Kalliandas Kirparam v. Trikamlal Gulabrai 9 Bom. H.C.R. 307.

4.The second objection must be allowed.

5. The appellants' vakil admits that unless he is permitted to refer to the notes of evidence, he cannot support the appeal. The appeal, therefore, fails, and we must dismiss it with costs.

6. Wilson and King, Attorneys for Respondent.

Same Parties Abdool and ors. vs Mahamed Same Subject Civil Same Judge Muttusami Ayyar and ;Parker, JJ.

Civil