Dr Mukesh Chauhan v Ajay Associates/

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeLORD JUSTICE CHADWICK
Judgment Date27 October 2004
Neutral Citation[2004] EWCA Civ 1522
CourtCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)
Date27 October 2004
Docket NumberA2/2004/1714

[2004] EWCA Civ 1522

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)

ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT

CHANCERY DIVISION

(MR JUSTICE RIMER)

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand

London, WC2

Before:

Lord Justice Chadwick

A2/2004/1714

Dr Mukesh Chauhan
Applicant/Appellant
and
Ajay Associates
Respondents/Respondents

DR M CHAUHAN appeared IN PERSON

The Respondents did not appear and were not represented

LORD JUSTICE CHADWICK
1

This is an application for permission to appeal from an order made on 5th July 2004 by Rimer J in bankruptcy proceedings.

2

It should be noted that page 2 in appeal bundle 1, tab C, is not in fact a true copy of the second page of the appellant's notice. It is a matter of some concern that the bundle has been produced in a form which suggests that it is. The appellant's notice as filed is, indeed, a notice seeking to appeal from the order of Rimer J, as I have indicated, and not from an earlier order made by another judge.

3

The applicant, Dr Mukesh Chauhan, was adjudged bankrupt on 13th May 2004 by the order of Mr Registrar Nicholls made in the High Court on a petition presented on 26th January 2004 by Ajay Associates, a firm of accountants. The petition was founded on a judgment debt, orders for costs and interest, together amounting to £19,027.16. The petition followed an unsatisfied statutory demand served on 12th December 2003.

4

Although, on its face, that appears to be a demand for £17,116.21, it does in fact contain particulars of debt amounting to the full sum of £19,027.16 stated in the petition. That debt compromises (1) a judgment dated 3rd April 2001 in the sum of £10,026.27, (2) interest on that sum, at the judgment rate of 8 per cent to 10th December 2003, in an amount of £2,158.20, (3) costs in the amount of £4,089.59 awarded on 25th June 2003 in respect of a failed application to set aside the judgment debt, (4) interest on those costs in an amount of £159.29, and (5) further costs awarded on 25th November 2003 in the sum of £2,593.81 in respect of a failed application to appeal the judgment debt. There is nothing in the papers to suggest that the debtor took any steps to set aside the statutory demand.

5

It was in those circumstances that the Registrar made a bankruptcy order on 13th May 2004. There is no transcript of the Registrar's judgment before this court. Nor was a transcript of that judgment made available to Rimer J.

6

The debtor appealed to the High Court from the bankruptcy order. That appeal came before Rimer J on 5th July 2004. In a full judgment setting out the history of this matter, the judge said this, at paragraph 32:

"…the Registrar was fully entitled to take the view that for all practical purposes Dr Chauhan was faced at that stage [at which the matter was before the Registrar in May] with a judgment debt which represented the end of the road for him and which he had no reasonable prospect of being able to challenge either by way of appeal or otherwise. Dr Chauhan had sought permission to appeal and had been refused....

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • R Anwar Hussain v The Parole Board of England and Wales
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 24 Febrero 2016
    ...systems and resources for such courses and places (see Kaiyam (CA) at [29], R (Cawser) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 1522 ("Cawser") at [19], [30] and [34] per Simon Brown LJ, and R (Weddle) v Secretary of State for Justice [2016] EWCA Civ 38). The duty to act......
  • R Brian Dilks v The Secretary of State for Justice The National Probation Service (Interested Party)
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 15 Enero 2015
    ...etc, without making reasonable provision for such courses and places ( R (Cawser) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 1522 at [19], [30] and [34] per Simon Brown LJ, and R (Weddle) v Secretary of State for Justice [2013] EWHC 2323 (Admin)). ii) The duty of the Sec......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT