REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

MAGHANAMAL NARUMAL Appellant

V/S

MOOLCHAND GIANCHAND Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

R. V. DUBLIN CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL TELEPHONE CO. V. POST MASTER GENERAL [REFERRED TO]
SHELL CO. OF AUSTRALIA V. FEDERAL COMMISSIONERS OF TAXATION [REFERRED TO]
FROME UNITED BREWERIES V. BATH JUSTICES [REFERRED TO]
COOPER V. WILSON [REFERRED TO]
R. V. LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL [REFERRED TO]
PITMAN'S SHORTHAND ACADEMY V. B. LILA RAM AND SONS [REFERRED TO]
RAM LABHAYA V. KRIPA RAM [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA V. GOPICHAND [REFERRED TO]
SAWATRAM RAM PRASAD MILLS CO.,LTD. V. VISHNU PANDURANG [REFERRED TO]
BRIJ LAL V. SUNDER DAS [REFERRED TO]
DR. SHAYAMAKANT VERMA V. DR. HARISHANKER PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
RIVER STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY,LTD. V. SHYAM SUNDER TEA CO.,LTD. [REFERRED TO]
SRINIVASA RAJAMANI RAJAH DEO V. SENAPATHI JAGANNAYAKULU [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT BANK LIMITED DELHI VS. EMPLOYEES OF BHARAT BANK LTD [REFERRED TO]
PROVINCE OF BOMBAY VS. KHUSHALDAS S ADVANI SINCE DECEASED AND AFTER HIM HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE A GOVINDRAM KHUSHALDAS AND B RAMCHAND KHUSHALDAS [REFERRED TO]
SUNDAR DAS VS. LACHMAN DAS [REFERRED TO]
PHUL KUMARI VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
JAGABANDHU DAS VS. BABAJI JENA [REFERRED TO]
KALAVAGUNTA SRIRAMARAO VS. KALAVAGUNTA SURYANARAYANAMURTHI [REFERRED TO]
SADU YESU VS. GANPAT LAXMAN [REFERRED TO]
RAJAH OF VENKATAGIRI VS. SHAIK MAHABOOB SAHEB [REFERRED TO]
KIRON CHANDRA BOSE VS. KALIDAS CHATTERJI [REFERRED TO]
BALAKRISHNA UDAYAR VS. VASUDEVA AIYAR [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision arises out of proceedings under Section 5 of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, No. 70 of 1951 (hereinafter called the 1951 Act).

(2.) Maghanmal applied on 9-9-1952, to the Tribunal constituted under Section 4 of the 1951 Act for adjustment of his debts. In the list of creditors he mentioned the name of Mulchand with the remark that the owed him nothing still he (Mulchand) demanded repayment of an alleged loan. Other creditors are not concerned with this revision.

(3.) Mulchand had made a separate application under Section 10 of the 1951 Act making a claim of Rs. 5,500/- against Maghanmal. On 1-5-1953, that petition was dismissed on the ground that Maghanmal had already filed a petition under Section 5 of the Act. Thereupon, on 16-9-1953, Mulchand made an application to the Tribunal in Maghanmal's case, for the determination of his debt. Maghanmal resisted Mulchand's claim. Shri S.L. Chopta, learned Civil Judge First Class, acting as the tribunal constituted) under Section 4 of the Act, held that a sum of Rs. 3600/- was due by Maghanmal to Mulchand on account of two transactions and that the claim was within limitation because they were 'deposits'.

Click here to view full judgment.

MAGHANAMAL NARUMAL Vs. MOOLCHAND GIANCHAND

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address