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: Surajmull Munglechand

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Aug 25, 1921
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/861216

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
MRTP

Case Summary

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

Presidecy Towns Insolvency Act (III of 1909) Sections 55, 56. application under - Creditor, when entitled to make application. -

Key legal issue
MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Surajmull Munglechand

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1921Cal403(1),70Ind.Cas.463

Excerpt

presidecy towns insolvency act (iii of 1909) sections 55, 56. application under - creditor, when entitled to make application. - greaves, j.1. this is an application on behalf of kissen das banthia, the adjudicating creditor, asking for an order that madhoram rahumall do produce a certain deed of assignment executed by the insolvents in favour of raghunath das sivalal of all debts due to the insolvents and also another deed referred to in the summons executed by raghunath dass sivlal assigning their interest under the first deed may be declared void, and in the alternative that raghunath dass sivial do pay to their offical assignee a sum of rs. 30,000 received by them as consideration for the assignment executed by them above referred to.2. a preliminary objection was taken that this application, which is said to be made by virtue of the provisions of sections 55 and 56 of the presidency towns insolvency act, can only be made by the offical assignee. i think the objection is well founded and that such and application should be made by the official assignee in whom the property of the insolvent is vested and not by a creditor. if the offical assingnee, when asked to take action, refuses it may be that with the leave of the court a creditor may make such and application but i have no evidence before me either that the official assignee has been asked to take action or that he has refused to move. this being so i think the preliminary objection must prevail and that on the materials before me i must refuse the application.

Full Judgment

Greaves, J.

1. This is an application on behalf of kissen Das Banthia, the adjudicating creditor, asking for an order that Madhoram Rahumall do produce a certain deed of assignment executed by the insolvents in favour of Raghunath Das sivalal of all debts due to the insolvents and also another deed referred to in the summons executed by Raghunath Dass Sivlal assigning their interest under the first deed may be declared void, and in the alternative that Raghunath Dass Sivial do pay to their offical Assignee a sum of Rs. 30,000 received by them as consideration for the assignment executed by them above referred to.

2. A preliminary objection was taken that this application, which is said to be made by virtue of the provisions of Sections 55 and 56 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, can only be made by the offical Assignee. I think the objection is well founded and that such and application should be made by the official Assignee in whom the property of the insolvent is vested and not by a creditor. If the offical Assingnee, when asked to take action, refuses it may be that with the leave of the Court a creditor may make such and application but I have no evidence before me either that the Official Assignee has been asked to take action or that he has refused to move. This being so I think the preliminary objection must prevail and that on the materials before me I must refuse the application.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial