Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (1.23 seconds)Documents citing
In Re: Dinaram Somani And Ors. vs Bhim Bahadur Sing Chetri And Anr. on 9 January, 1923
R.K. Abdul Rahim Sahib And Co. And The ... vs G. Ramanujiah on 12 March, 1928
11. After I had passed the above order, Mr. Albuquerque drew my attention to a case, not cited by Mr. V. Varadaraja Mudaliar, Dinaram Somani v. Bhim Bahadur Singh (1923) 27 CWN 370, in which it has been held that the High Court, Calcutta, has jurisdiction to summon witnesses residing more than 200 miles from Calcutta under Section 36 and that Order 16, Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, does not apply to summonses under Section 36. This decision is in conflict with the judgment in O.S. A. No. 30 of 1917 of the Madras High Court in which it has been held that, in respect of orders under Section 36 of the Act, the court is governed by the provisions of Order 16 of the Code and by any rules relating to the same matter to be found in the Original Side Rules.
Insolvency Laws
In Dinaram Somani V.
Bhim Bahadur Singh' the Calcutta High Court held that
the court could, acting under this section, is-sue summons
against a person who could not be compelled to give evi-
dence under Order 16, Rule 19, Code of Civil Procedure,
because section 36 deals with discovery of property and
not with taking of testimony, and the jurisdiction confer-
red by the section is not, by reason of the proviso to section
90(1). Presidency Act, controlled by the provisions of the
Civil Procedure Code. See also Re Pushkar Na?-ayan
Brahinwai'-'. In Madras. it has been held that while no
witness could be compelled to give evidence if he satisfies
the requirements of Order 16. Rule 19, C.P.C., he could be
compelled to produce documents, as documents could be
produced by him through any other person.
1