RE MOHAN BHAGWANDAS MURJANI

RE MOHAN BHAGWANDAS MURJANI

Section 100(4) read with rule 204 does not grant the court jurisdiction to extend the statutory period in s.3(1)(g); once the period prescribed by s.3(1)(g) expires without compliance an act of bankruptcy occurs and cannot be retrospectively negated by extending the affidavit filing period, following the Court of Appeal in Slater Walker.

Citation
RE MOHAN BHAGWANDAS MURJANI
Parties
Debtor/applicant: Mohan Bhagwandas Murjani; Creditor/petitioner: Bank of India; Official Receiver: Official Receiver
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 January 1991
Case Number
HCB525/1989
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy / Application for Extension of Time to Set Aside Bankruptcy Notice (s.3(1)(g))
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs; certificate for two counsel.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Bankruptcy Notice, Jurisdiction, Set‑aside, Statutory Interpretation
Source Language
EN
Bankruptcy Insolvency Civil Procedure Extension of Time Bankruptcy Notice Jurisdiction Set‑aside Statutory Interpretation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohan Bhagwandas Murjani

Debtor/applicant

Bank of India

Creditor/petitioner

Official Receiver

Official Receiver

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy / Application for Extension of Time to Set Aside Bankruptcy Notice (s.3(1)(g))

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.100(4) of the Bankruptcy Ordinance read with rule 204 permits the court to extend the time under s.3(1)(g) after the prescribed period has expired
  2. 2 Whether an extension of time can retrospectively nullify an act of bankruptcy already complete
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise any residual discretion to extend time pending jurisdictional determination

Ratio Decidendi

Section 100(4) read with rule 204 does not grant the court jurisdiction to extend the statutory period in s.3(1)(g); once the period prescribed by s.3(1)(g) expires without compliance an act of bankruptcy occurs and cannot be retrospectively negated by extending the affidavit filing period, following the Court of Appeal in Slater Walker.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs; certificate for two counsel.

Orders

  • Summons dismissed with costs
  • Certificate for two counsel