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

1937 Supreme(Mad) 456

Bachu Mallikarjuna Rao – Appellant
Versus
The Official Receiver – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Burn, J.

1. The facts in this case are quite simple. The appellant is the purchaser at a sale held in execution on the 10th December, 1935. The decree was passed on the I6th April, 1935, and the execution petition was put in on the next day. An order for sale was passed on the 21st October, 1935, but four days before that, namely, on the 17th October, 1935, one of the judgment-debtors (third defendant in the suit) had been adjudicated insolvent in I.P. No. 15 of 1935. It was the property of the third defendant that had been attached in E.P. No. 87 of 1935 and proclaimed for sale in the order passed on the 21st October, iy35. On the 19th November, 1935, one of the creditors of the insolvent judgment-debtor put in an application in which he informed the executing Court of the adjudication of the third defendant, but the learned Subordinate Judge refused to stay the sale. On the 4th December, 1935, the Official Receiver was impleaded in the execution petition. He did not appear on the 9th December, the date fixed for sale, but in response to the notice served upon him on the 4th December, he replied to the executing Court that the property of the third judgment-debtor had veste

































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