SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1972 Supreme(Bom) 149

D.B.PADHYE, N.D.KAMAT
Rajaram and Anr – Appellant
Versus
Ganpati – Respondent


JUDGMENT - Padhye, J.

1. This revision arises out of an insolvency matter. It has come to us on a reference being made at the instance of Masodkar, J. vide his order dated October 19, 1972. The learned Single Judge has stated the facts in his referring order and saw the conflict in the case-law on the question whether in a case where after adjudication no receiver is appointed, a creditor, without obtaining prior leave of the Court, can move an application under Section 53 and/or Section 54 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The other question that arises in the case is whether the transfer, which is sought to be challenged by the creditors is for valuable consideration and good faith. The whole case has been referred to us for decision and we, therefore, deal with both these aspects of the matter. A very few facts need be stated to appreciate the points involved.

2. The opponent No. 4 Umakant Gajananrao Pathak was indebted to certain creditors. On May 24, 1960, he executed a deed of sale of a house in favour of Rajaram and Balwant for a consideration of Rs. 30,000. On the same date, he also executed an unregistered document in favour of the said two persons who are the applicants in






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top