The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the effect of adjudication in Penang on the insolvent's immovable property in British India, the applicability of the Straits Settlements Bankruptcy Ordinance, and the court's role in aiding other jurisdictions.

Beasley, C.J.

1. This appeal raises a very interesting questing of law which is not an easy one to decide.

2. The facts are that the insolvent was adjudicated an insolvent at Penang on 9th January 1931. Penang is a part of the Straits Settlements. On 15th March of the same year the appellant, who is a resident of Ramnad, filed a suit against the insolvent in the Sub-Court of Ramnad and obtained an attachment before judgment of his Immovable property on 24th July 1931, and a decree on 28th November 1931. On 19th July 1932 he attached in execution the insolvents Immovable property in Ramnad. On 24th October 1932, the insolvent executed a conveyance in Penang of his property in British India including the property under attachment in favour of the Official Assignee in bankruptcy of Penang. On 5th December 1932, at the request of the Supreme Court of Penang, an order was made by this High Court for the Official Assignee of Madras to act as auxiliary to the Official Assignee of Penang and take possession and realise the properties of the bankrupt. The Official Assignee of Madras having heard of the proceedings in execution taken by the appellant applied to the Insolvency Court for an order under Section 18, Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, staying the appellants execution-proceedings. On 1st May 1933, the learned trial Judge ordered a stay of those proceedings. Hence this appeal.

3. Stone, J., considered first of all whether the insolvents property in India vested or should be deemed to have vested in the Official Assignee of Penang, subject to the performance of any act of transfer required by the law of India, as from the date of adjudication. If yes, then the attachment would be ineffective because it came into force after the date of the adjudication. It was argued in the insolvency Court and here that the effect of the adjudication in Penang was to vest in the Official Assignee there the Immovable property of the insolvent in British India, and in this connection the Bankruptcy Ordinance in the Straits Settlements vesting an insolvents property in the Official Assignee there must be examined. This is Ordinance No. 44, Section 24, Clause 4, which reads:

When a debtor is adjudged bankrupt, his property shall become divisible among his creditors and shall vest in the Official Assignee.

4. In Section 2 property is defined as including, amongst other things, property whether real or personal "and whether situate in the Colony or elsewhere." Thus Section 24(4) and the latter definition correspond to Section 17, Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, except that in the former case it is property "situate in the Colony or elsewhere" and in the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, it is "where-ever situate." It was contended for the Official Assignee that the words "situate in the Colony or elsewhere" are sufficiently wide to vest the Immovable property of the insolvent in British India in the Official Assignee of Penang merely by reason of the adjudication there. Stone, J., was of the opinion that this contention was wrong and I agree. The Straits Settlements Bankruptcy Ordinance is clearly without force in Madras-where the insolvents Immovable property is, and if it purports to cause a vesting of extra-territorial Immovable property, it is ultra vires : Macleod v. Attorney-General, New South Wales (1891) A.C. 455. The insolvents Immovable property, here did not vest in the Official Assignee of Penang vistatuti and the learned trial Judge correctly points out the distinction between this case and Callender Sykes & Co. v. Colonial Secretary of Lagos & Davies (1891) A.C. 460. In the latter case the English Bankruptcy Act of 1869 applied to all Her Majestys Dominions and the insolvents title to the property "in England or elsewhere" vested in the trustee in bankruptcy by reason of the adjudication. That Act had operative force in Lagos ?which had no Bankruptcy Act of its own. The position is clearly quite different where the Immovable property