Back
1925 Supreme(Mad) 638
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MARAS
Ponnammai Ammal
Versus
District Official Receiver
Decided On : 27 October, 1925
Section 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act of 1920 restricts the Official Receiver from challenging transfers from transferees of the insolvent.
Headnote:
Section 53, Provincial Insolvency Act of 1920 - Official Receiver - Scope of Section 53
Fact of the Case:
The court considered the scope of Section 53, Provincial Insolvency Act of 1920, specifically whether the Official Receiver is permitted to challenge a transfer from a transferee of the insolvent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the language of Section 53 favored the view that the Official Receiver is not at liberty to attack a transfer from a transferee of the insolvent. The court referred to relevant rulings and cases to support this view.
Issues: The key issue was the interpretation of Section 53 and whether it allowed the Official Receiver to challenge a transfer from a transferee of the insolvent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the language of Section 53 and the interpretation of relevant rulings and cases, which led to the conclusion that the Official Receiver is not at liberty to attack such transfers.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals, set aside the lower court's order, and dismissed the Official Receiver's petitions with costs throughout in all three cases.
1. (After dealing with the question of fact the judgment proceeded.) A legal point as to the scope of Section 53,. Provincial Insolvency Act of 1920, has been taken before us, viz., that under it the Official Receiver is not at liberty to attack a transfer from a transferee of the insolvent. The language of the section, favours this view since it is the "transferrer" who is the insolvent. This view is supported by a ruling reported in Sudha v. Firm Nanakchand-Daulatram A. I. R. 1925 Lah. 295, and the ruling of Oldfield, J., in C. M. A. No. 159 of 1918 reported in Jagannatha Ayyangar v. Narayana Ayyangar [1919] 52 I. C.
761. We are inclined to agree with the remarks of the latter on this point in that judgment including the ground on which he distinguishes the English cases cited by him, but may point out that in both the cases In re Vansittart; Ex parte Brown [1893] 2 Q. B. 377, and In re Brall; Ex parte Norton [1893] 2 Q. B. 381; the transfer was upheld and not set aside as Oldfield, J., states. A more recent case In re Hart; Ex parte Green [1912] 3 K. B. 6 has been cited to us, which carries out the principle laid down in the two Queens Bench cases and applies it even to a case where the transfer from the original done from the insolvent was subsequent to the act of bankruptcy. We need not, however, pursue the matter further here.
2. We allow the appeals and set aside the lower Courts order in to and dismiss the Official Receivers petitions with costs throughout in all the three cases.
