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

1936 Supreme(Mad) 110

VENKATASUBBA RAO
Muthan Chettiar – Appellant
Versus
Venkituswami Naicken – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. These appeals raise a question of some importance as to the scope and effect of Sections 51 and 52 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The facts may be briefly stated. The decree in question was obtained on 7th March, 1933, and the property was attached in due course. Subsequently on 1 lth August, 1934, the judgment-debtors presented a petition for being adjudicated insolvents. An interim receiver was appointed and on 3rd September, 1934, he was directed to take possession of the insolvents property. In the meantime the executing Court had directed the attached property to be sold. The date fixed for sale was 26th September, 1934. On that date the interim receiver and one of the insolvent judgment-debtors presented to the executing Court an application under Section 52, which, though strictly not in conformity with that section, we are prepared to treat as falling within it. On the 26th September, 1934, the learned Subordinate Judge (Mr. Krishna Nambiyar) made an order refusing to stop the sale but directing that the sale proceeds should be paid to the Official Receiver. A sale was accordingly held and a third party that is a stranger to the suit purcha





















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