https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310743 Under the first proviso to Section 75(1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, the High Court could interfere only to ensure legality and prevent miscarriage of justice, not to reappraise evidence or disturb the District Court's findings of fact merely because it preferred a different view. The Court also examined whether the mortgages were supported by consideration: the account books and contemporaneous promissory notes proved consideration for Exh. A-2 and for most of Exh. A-1, but the alleged cash payment of Rs. 4,500 on 6 November 1950 was not satisfactorily proved. Exh. A-2 was upheld, and Exh. A-1 was valid only to the extent of the proved consideration. en-us Thu, 13 Feb 1969 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Nov 2023 15:48:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310743 Under the first proviso to Section 75(1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, the High Court could interfere only to ensure legality and prevent miscarriage of justice, not to reappraise evidence or disturb the District Court's findings of fact merely because it preferred a different view. The Court also examined whether the mortgages were supported by consideration: the account books and contemporaneous promissory notes proved consideration for Exh. A-2 and for most of Exh. A-1, but the alleged cash payment of Rs. 4,500 on 6 November 1950 was not satisfactorily proved. Exh. A-2 was upheld, and Exh. A-1 was valid only to the extent of the proved consideration. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 13 Feb 1969 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310743