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

1929 Supreme(Mad) 189

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Waller
(Pedda) Kondappa
Versus
(Ganne) Pullappa
Decided On : 30 April, 1929

The court's decision was influenced by the difference in the alleged act of insolvency and the act of insolvency found by the Judge.

Headnote:

Act of Insolvency - Sale of Property - The court considered the act of insolvency alleged in the application and the act of insolvency found by the Judge, highlighting the difference in the two and its impact on the decision.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant was adjudicated on an act of insolvency not relied on in the application against him, involving the sale of property and preference of some creditors.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the act of insolvency alleged in the application differed from the act of insolvency found by the Judge, leading to the dismissal of the application and allowing the appeal with costs.

Issues: Difference in alleged act of insolvency and act of insolvency found by the Judge, impact on the decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The difference in the alleged act of insolvency and the act of insolvency found by the Judge influenced the court's decision to dismiss the application and allow the appeal.

Final Decision: The application was dismissed, and the appeal was allowed with costs.

JUDGMENT

Waller, J.

1. I am inclined to take the view that the appellant has been adjudicated on an act of insolvency not relied on in the application against him. The act of insolvency alleged in the application was the sale of the property to a person who was not a creditor. That might have been an act of insolved. with reference to Section 53 of the Act. What, however, the Judge found was that an act of insolvency had been committed because the appellant had preferred some of the creditors by paying them off out of the proceeds of the sale. That seems to me to be a very different matter. The petitioning creditors did not put it forward. It was the appellant that put it forward as a defence.

2. I would dismiss the application, allowing the appeal with costs.

Pandalai, J.

3. I agree.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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 Back to top