020-NLR-NLR-V-18-ALI-MARIKAR-v.-ARUNACHALAM-CHETTY.pdf
( 75 )
Pre$eni: Pereira J. and Shaw J.
AM MARIKAR v. ARUNACHALAM CHETTY.
140—D. C. Colombo, 2,574.
7iwf/r»Mrjf—Cl|»|iwt<iiw| to grmilhig ofcertificate—Noticeshould specify
an muds—/iimj^<wtM»iire. tt. liM.
lu n .notice of, opposiliou given under section 124 of the Insolvency(mTTnancc to (he granting of a certificate of conformity to theinsolvent, it is necessary that the particular acts of the insolventre lie* I on as grounds of opposition should be specified in preciseami definite terms.
Bawa, K.C., for insolvent, appellant.
H. B. Koch, for respondents.
Cur. ado. vult.
December 14, 1914. Pereira J.—
1 think that the disclosures elicited from the insolvent at hislast examination under the Insolvency Ordinance, No. 7 of 1853,sufficiently support the order made by the District Judge refusinghim a certificate of conformity, and I would dismiss the presentappeal with costs. At the same time I should like to observethat the grounds of opposition set forth in the notice of oppositiongiven by the respondents are expressed in terms much too vagutto be of any use. I presume that notice of opposition in a caslike this is given under section 124 of the Ordinance. That sectiondoes not expressly require that the grounds of opposition should beset forth in the notice of opposition, but { understand that it isdone in pursuance of a well-established practice of the Court. Ifsuck a requirement is to be enforced, it would be as well that theparticular acts relied on as grounds of opposition should be specifiedin precise and definite terms. That they should be regarded asembodied in such vague and general charges as those made in thiscase can be of no practical advantage to anybody. No objectionhas, however, been taken in this case to the manner in which theso-called grounds of opposition have been set forth.
Shaw J.—
I agree. I think that the facts elicited at the* examination of theinsolvent were such as to justify the District Judge’s refusing togrant a certificate of conformity.
I also agree that although section 124 of Ordinance No. 7 of 1853does not specifically require particulars to be given in the notice of
1914.
1914.
Shaw J.
Alt Marikar*. Arunacha-lam Che tty
opposition of *he precise act or defaults of the insolvent on whichthe opposition is based, nevertheless it is only fair to the insolventthat such particulars should be given in the notice, so that he shouldknow exactly what charges he has to meet. I understand thatthis has been the common practice, and think it should be adheredto in all cases in the future.
Appeal dismis'sed.