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

1943 Supreme(Mad) 220

HORWILL
Maturi Lakshmikantamma – Appellant
Versus
Motilal Kesarimal Firm – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Horwill, J.

1. The petitioners husband made a number of alienations just before he was adjudicated insolvent; and with regard to some of them, the Official Receiver instituted proceedings under Sections 4, 5, 53 and 54-A of the Provincial Insolvency Act to have them set aside. With regard to the one with which we are concerned, however, he took no action. One of the creditors then applied to the Insolvency Court under Section 54-A of the Insolvency Act for permission to institute proceedings under Sections 4, 53, and 54; and the Court accorded that sanction. The application was heard; and the Court found that it was a genuine transaction fully supported by consideration and not made in fraud of creditors. An appeal filed by the aggrieved creditor was allowed. During the pendency of the appeal, however, the Insolvency Court annulled the adjudication, though it does not appear that the appellate Court was aware of this. The question is whether on account of the annulling of the adjudication, the appellate Court ceased to have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. If so, the order of the District Judge is void.

2. It has now been conclusively decided by Bhadramma v. Parvateesam Ayyav







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