HORWILL
Maturi Lakshmikantamma – Appellant
Versus
Motilal Kesarimal Firm – Respondent
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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.