Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.38 seconds)
Documents citing Alamelu Ammal vs Chinnaswamy Reddiar on 2 December, 1988

Ramalingam ... Decree Holder/ vs Loganayaki …Petitioner/Third Party/ on 8 April, 2022

20.The arguments of the learned counsel for the 1st respondent that the question of fraudulent transfer cannot be considered in execution proceedings cannot be sustained in the light of the Judgment of this Court reported in Alamelu Ammal v. Chinnaswamy Reddiar [CDJ 1988 MHC 161], where the learned Judge of this Court relying upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in C.Abdul Shukoor Saheb vs Arji Papa Rao and others [AIR 1963 SC 1150] and the earlier Judgment of this Court reported in Ramaswami Chettiar v. Mallappa Reddiar [1920 AIR (Mad) 748] has held that a transaction which is voidable under Section 53(2) of the Act can be avoided not only by filing a suit but also be raised as a defence to the proceedings under Order 21 Rule 58 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - P T Asha - Full Document

Ramalingam ... Decree Holder/ vs Loganayaki …Petitioner/Third Party/ on 8 April, 2022

20.The arguments of the learned counsel for the 1st respondent that the question of fraudulent transfer cannot be considered in execution proceedings cannot be sustained in the light of the Judgment of this Court reported in Alamelu Ammal v. Chinnaswamy Reddiar [CDJ 1988 MHC 161], where the learned Judge of this Court relying upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in C.Abdul Shukoor Saheb vs Arji Papa Rao and others [AIR 1963 SC 1150] and the earlier Judgment of this Court reported in Ramaswami Chettiar v. Mallappa Reddiar [1920 AIR (Mad) 748] has held that a transaction which is voidable under Section 53(2) of the Act can be avoided not only by filing a suit but also be raised as a defence to the proceedings under Order 21 Rule 58 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - P T Asha - Full Document

D.V. Raghavan vs A.J. Suresh Kumar And Another on 8 December, 1999

17. The bona fides of the appellant has been discussed by the lower Court. It is now settled law that the attaching creditor need not file a separate suit under Section 53 of Transfer of Property Act in a representative capacity to putforth his case, that the transfer was in fraud of creditors, and that he is entitled to plead by way of defence in the claim proceedings vide Alamelu Ammal v. Chinaswamy Reddiar, 1988 (II) MLJ 395 : 1989 (I) L.W. 131. In fact the question of filing a separate suit is barred after the amended provisions of Order 21, Rule 58, C.P.C. and all questions relating to title or interest in the property attached have to be decided and adjudicated only in the claim proceedings and not by separate suit.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Sivasamy vs Rajavannian And Valliammal on 23 February, 2004

"As held in by a Bench of this Court the adjudication referred to under O.21 Rule 58, C.P.C. (as amended in 1976) is not summary and it is the intention of legislature under the amended C.P.C. that it should be a decision as if rendered in a regular suit resulting in an appealable decree, and the fuller examination of the rights of parties has to be held after giving them adequate opportunity to place all relevant materials before the court so that the court should ultimately decide and adjudicate on all questions including questions relating to title or interest in the property attached. It is clear from the ratio laid down in the above said decision that in view of the amended provisions of Order 21 rule 58 C.P.C. the question of filing a separate suit is barred and all questions relating to title or interest in the property attached have to be decided and adjudicated only in the claim proceedings and not by a separate suit."
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajan vs Dr.D.Jayashree Nayar on 2 December, 2009

17. Sri. James Vincent also relied on the decision in Alamelu Ammal V. Chinnaswamy Reddiar: A.I.R. 1989 Madras 311 and Abdul Jalal V. Mariya Financiers: 2002 (2) KLT 107. In A.I.R. 1989 Madras 311, in a suit on promissory note filed on 6-7-1978, attachment before judgment was ordered on 12-9-1978. Decree was passed on 19-11-1979. In execution, a claim petition was filed by the transferee of the property who purchased the property on 11.6.1978. The decree holder contended that the transfer was a fraudulent transfer. The executing court held that the transfer was a fraudulent transfer. The appellate court reversed that order holding that the question could not be decided in execution and that it could be decided in a separate suit. On further Appeal, the High Court of Madras held:
Kerala High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 18 - K T Sankaran - Full Document

Karri Arjunavathi vs Ginjala Chinna Rao on 1 December, 2022

It was also held that Section 64 C.P.C bans or prohibits a private transfer or delivery of the property attached and further in "Almelu Ammal Vs. Chinnaswamy Reddiar"4 wherein it was held that the attaching 1 2000(3) ALT 746 2 1996 (2) APLJ 307 3 1990 (II) Law Summary 41 4 1989 AIR (Madras) 311 5 creditor need not file a separate suit under Section 53 Transfer of Property Act to put forth his case that the transfer was in fraud of creditors and that he is entitled to plead by way of defence in the claim proceedings. Therefore considering the all factual aspects, material on record and also case law, which has been elaborately discussed by the below appellate court in right perspective manner and came to a conclusion that there is deliberate act on the part of the parties and brought to the new cause of action in the matter. Therefore dismiss the appeal without costs.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Pradip Vaid S/O Shri S.C. Vaid vs Universal Constructors (Proprietor ... on 7 March, 2005

19. The appellant has relied on AIR 2003 Kerala 45, Anthony v. Kunjavarankutty Hajee and Anr.; 2003 (VIII) SLT 385, Ashan Devi and Anr. v. Phulwasi Devi and Ors. 1999 (51) DRJ 491, Canara Bank v. Gurmukh Singh and Ors.; AIR 1978 Madras 270, Southern Steelmet and Alloys Ltd. v. B.M. Steel, Madras; AIR 1989 Madras 311, Alamelu Ammal v. Chinnaswamy Reddiar, to contend that his rights in the flat which was auctioned in satisfaction of decree, ought to have been determined by the Executing Court in objections filed by the appellant.
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - A Kumar - Full Document
1