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

1937 Supreme(Mad) 69

VARADACHARIAR
A. Subramania Aiyar – Appellant
Versus
S. Meenakshisundaram Chettiar – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Varadachariar, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition (under Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act) arises out of an application praying that the respondents debts which were admitted by the Official Receiver may be expunged from the schedule. The matter has been dealt with in the courts below on the assumption that the respondents claim could have been enforced in a court of law on the date of the presentation of the insolvency petition but that the remedy by suit had become barred by limitation before the date of the order of adjudication. The case has been argued before us on the same assumption.

2. Section 34(2) of Act V of 1920 provides that all debts to which the insolvent is subject when he is adjudged an insolvent (etc.) shall be debts provable under the Act. The Courts below have upheld the respondents contention that in view of the provision in Section 28(7) as to relation back the "criterion date was the date of the filing of the petition"; in support of the conclusion, they have relied on Venkata Hanumantha Rao v. Gangayya : AIR1928Mad608 , where it was held that a petition duly filed by a creditor might under Section 16 be allowed to be continued by another cre



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