High Courts(1926) 02 MAD CK 0010

K. Doraiswami Chetty vs The Official Assignee of Madras

Madras High Court · Decided on 4 February 1926 · Citation: AIR 1926 Mad 946 : 95 Ind. Cas. 446 : (1926) 51 MLJ 130

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 215 words
1.

Rule 26, Order 3 of the Insolvency Rules runs as follows:

If an order of adjudication is made without service of the petition, the debtor may, within 8 days after service of the order, or such further time as

may be allowed by the Court, apply by notice of motion supported by affidavit to annul the order.

2.

In this case no notice of the order of adjudication was given to the insolvent at all.This application was not made within eight days, nor was any

question raised as to allowing him further time. The learned Judge has held that the insolvent, who knew all about the adjudication, must be taken

as a person who had in effect had service of the order. We do not think that that is a construction of the rule which can be supported. Had it been

so intended words such as ""or after the order had been brought to his knowledge"" after ''service of the order"" could easily have been added, and

no such words are found. We therefore order that the case be remanded and dealt with on the merits. The appellant will have the costs of this

appeal in any event and the costs of the other proceedings will be in the discretion of the learned Judge.