AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Two preliminary objections are taken.
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.
The next objection is that no evidence was recorded u/s 72 of the Insolvent Act, and u/s 73 we are not at liberty to refer to the notes of
evidence taken by the learned Commissioner.
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.
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.
Wilson and King, Attorneys for Respondent.