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: Sarat Kumar Sen

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Aug 02, 1899
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/861802

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
Property

Case Summary

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

Insolvent Act (7 7 and 12 Vict., c. 21), Section 51 - Application for personal discharge--Discharge except as to debts due to a particular creditor--Prospective order under Section 51. -

Key legal issue
Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Sarat Kumar Sen

Legal References

Reported In
(1899)ILR26Cal973

Excerpt

insolvent act (7 7 and 12 vict., c. 21), section 51 - application for personal discharge--discharge except as to debts due to a particular creditor--prospective order under section 51. - .....the false and fraudulent representation made to him and on the faith of which he advanced his money. no other creditor is opposing the discharge of the insolvent. i regard the conduct of the insolvent as very reprehensible and i cannot overlook it.2. under the circumstances i grant a personal discharge as regards all the creditors save and except creditor no. 2, and as regards creditor no. 2 i shall apply the provisions of section 51 of the insolvent act. it appears to me reasonably clear upon the reading of that section of the act that i have no power to order the immediate commitment of the insolvent inasmuch as the creditor no. 2 has not placed himself in a position to issue execution against the insolvent. in the case of in the matter of manoharji hirji beadymoney (1868) 5 bom. h.c. 0. c, 55, it was held that such an order of adjudication does not in itself operate as an order for the imprisonment of the insolvent, but the detaining creditor if he wishes to arrest the insolvent, for the period prescribed by the court, must, if he has not already done so, place himself in a position to issue execution against the insolvent. accordingly, i can only make a prospective order, viz., that as to creditor no. 2 the insolvent shall be entitled to be discharged as soon as he shall have been in custody at the suit of that creditor for the period of six months. the effect of this order may be that if the debt be satisfied out of the proceeds of the sale of the mortgaged properties or otherwise no proceeding may be taken by the creditor no. 2 to enforce this order; but i abstain altogether from saying that the effect of payment will be to relieve the insolvent from the penalty prescribed by this section.

Full Judgment

Stanley, J.

1. In this matter it has been clearly established that the insolvent procured two loans amounting together to Rs. 9,000 upon the false representation that the property which formed the security for the loans was free from all incumbrances. The property, or a portion of the property, had been mortgaged the year previously to secure a sum of Rs. 4,000. It is apprehended by the puisne mortgagee that the mortgaged property will not realise sufficient to satisfy the three mortgages, and he opposes the discharge of the insolvent upon the ground of the false and fraudulent representation made to him and on the faith of which he advanced his money. No other creditor is opposing the discharge of the insolvent. I regard the conduct of the insolvent as very reprehensible and I cannot overlook it.

2. Under the circumstances I grant a personal discharge as regards all the creditors save and except creditor No. 2, and as regards creditor No. 2 I shall apply the provisions of Section 51 of the Insolvent Act. It appears to me reasonably clear upon the reading of that section of the Act that I have no power to order the immediate commitment of the insolvent inasmuch as the creditor No. 2 has not placed himself in a position to issue execution against the insolvent. In the case of In the matter of Manoharji Hirji Beadymoney (1868) 5 Bom. H.C. 0. C, 55, it was held that such an order of adjudication does not in itself operate as an order for the imprisonment of the insolvent, but the detaining creditor if he wishes to arrest the insolvent, for the period prescribed by the Court, must, if he has not already done so, place himself in a position to issue execution against the insolvent. Accordingly, I can only make a prospective order, viz., that as to creditor No. 2 the insolvent shall be entitled to be discharged as soon as he shall have been in custody at the suit of that creditor for the period of six months. The effect of this order may be that if the debt be satisfied out of the proceeds of the sale of the mortgaged properties or otherwise no proceeding may be taken by the creditor No. 2 to enforce this order; but I abstain altogether from saying that the effect of payment will be to relieve the insolvent from the penalty prescribed by this section.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial