Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

In Re: Maud Anderson

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Feb 15, 1909
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/852472

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kolkata
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

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

Insolvency - Indian Insolvent Act (11 and 12 Vict. Clause 21)--Jurisdiction--Summary proceeding--Order for Ejectment of insolvent Tenant, on application of Landlord, whether valid. -

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Maud Anderson

Legal References

Reported In
(1909)ILR36Cal489,2Ind.Cas.405

Excerpt

insolvency - indian insolvent act (11 and 12 vict. clause 21)--jurisdiction--summary proceeding--order for ejectment of insolvent tenant, on application of landlord, whether valid. - .....to show cause why she should not forthwith deliver up possession of those premises either to the landlord or to the official assignee. that matter came on for hearing, and notwithstanding the objection of maud anderson, the insolvent, the court ordered the insolvent to make over possession within a week to the official assignee. she did not do that, and the result was that a contempt order was passed on the 18th of november 1908. she now appeals: and she says that the court sitting in insolvency had no jurisdiction to make the first order. i think her contention must prevail. i can see nothing in the insolvency act which enables the court to make at the instance of a landlord, what is virtually an order for ejectment against his tenant. it is said that her interest in this house vested in the official assignee. that would be true if she had any interest, but the landlord proceeds on the footing that the lease had determined, that maud anderson was a trespasser and that he was entitled to immediate possession. in this view, there was nothing to vest in the official assignee. if the official assignee thought he was entitled to and wanted possession, it was for him to have applied to the court. but there are no provisions in the insolvency act which enable the court sitting in insolvency on a summary proceeding like the present to make virtually an ejectment decree, at the instance of a landlord, against his tenant. the appeal therefore succeeds and, must be allowed with costs both here and in the court of first instance. the order for committal must also be discharged. i regret the result, because i think the appellant has been too smart for the other side.brett, j.2. i agree.

Full Judgment

Francis W. Maclean, C.J.

1. One Maud Anderson became insolvent on the 4th of August 1908. It appears that she was a monthly tenant of certain premises known as 77, Dhurrumtollah Street, at a rent of Rs. 300. On the 7th of September 1908, an application was made by her landlord the practical object of which was that the insolvent should be ordered to show cause why she should not forthwith deliver up possession of those premises either to the landlord or to the Official Assignee. That matter came on for hearing, and notwithstanding the objection of Maud Anderson, the insolvent, the Court ordered the insolvent to make over possession within a week to the Official Assignee. She did not do that, and the result was that a contempt order was passed on the 18th of November 1908. She now appeals: and she says that the Court sitting in Insolvency had no jurisdiction to make the first order. I think her contention must prevail. I can see nothing in the Insolvency Act which enables the Court to make at the instance of a landlord, what is virtually an order for ejectment against his tenant. It is said that her interest in this house vested in the Official Assignee. That would be true if she had any interest, but the landlord proceeds on the footing that the lease had determined, that Maud Anderson was a trespasser and that he was entitled to immediate possession. In this view, there was nothing to vest in the Official Assignee. If the Official Assignee thought he was entitled to and wanted possession, it was for him to have applied to the Court. But there are no provisions in the Insolvency Act which enable the Court sitting in Insolvency on a summary proceeding like the present to make virtually an ejectment decree, at the instance of a landlord, against his tenant. The appeal therefore succeeds and, must be allowed with costs both here and in the Court of first instance. The order for committal must also be discharged. I regret the result, because I think the appellant has been too smart for the other side.

Brett, J.

2. I agree.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial