MALINI AYYAPPA NAICKER (NOW DEAD) THROUGH L.R. ETC. ETC. vs SETH MANGHRAJ UDHAVDAS FIRM BY MANAGING PARTNER CHATHURBH

The Supreme Court interpreted the first proviso of Section 75(1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, clarifying that the High Court does not possess appellate power to reappraise evidence or disturb factual findings made by the District Court. The Court held that a decision contrary to law under Section 100(1)(a) of the CPC is not synonymous with a decision not 'according to law' as per the Insolvency Act. The findings of the District Court regarding the payment of consideration were upheld, except for one payment related to a mortgage, which was deemed valid only to the extent of Rs. 10,500/- due to lack of proof for the full amount.