Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 61 (0.44 seconds)
Documents citing C. Abdul Shukoor Saheb vs Arji Papa Rao And Others on 14 November, 1962

Sivasamy vs Rajavannian And Valliammal on 23 February, 2004

"In this case the sale of property in favour of the appellant by the second respondent was intended only for the purpose of discharging the debts of the second respondent. The pre-dominant object of sale was to pay the creditors out of the proceeds and if the purchaser was unaware of the existence of the concerned promissory note debts, as established by evidence then the payment of particular debt only without payment of all the debts would at best be a case of fraudulent preference which could be impugned only under the law relating to insolvency and cannot be characterised as a fraud on creditors so as to justify the institution of proceedings under section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act as pointed out by the Supreme Court in Abdul Shakoor - vs. - Arji Papa Rao, "
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sunderlal Daga (Decd.) And Another ... vs Tax Recovery Officer And Others on 17 January, 1997

19. The aforesaid pronouncements would clearly show that adjudication of possession is the main part of the enquiry under rule 11 and once possession is so adjudicated, it will become necessary to see as to the character of the possession, that is, whether the claimant is in possession on his own account. It was urged by Shri Bobde, that a contention that the document is sham can fall for consideration in a proceeding under rule 11 as according to him that would have relevance in discerning as to whether the possession claimed by the claimant is on behalf of the defaulter. Counsel maintained, the decision in Arji Papa Rao's case, , does not rule out the said proposition. The relevant portion in the said judgment has already been extracted early.
Bombay High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Narendrabhai Chhaganbhai Bharatia vs Gandevi Peoples Co-Op. Bank Ltd. And ... on 1 February, 2002

31. Supreme Court in C, Abdul Shukoor Saheb's case (AIR 1963 SC 1150) (supra) held that where fraud on the part of the transferor is established by the terms of paragraph (1) of Section 53 being satisfied, the burden of proving that the transferee fell within the exception is upon him and in order to succeed he must establish that he was not a party to the design of the transferor and that he did not share the Intention with which the transfer had been effected but that he took the sale honestly believing that the transfer was in the ordinary and normal course of business. After discussing the facts of the case, it is further held that in the circumstances, it stood to reason that the transferee must be fixed with notice of the design in pursuance of which the transfer was effected. If the object of a transferor who is heavily indebted was to convert his immoveable property into cash for keeping it away from his creditors and knowing it the transferee helped him to achieve that purpose it has naturally to be held that he shared that intention and was himself a party to the fraud. Thus the transferee was not a transferee in good faith and the transfer was a scheme by the transferor with the knowledge and concurrence of the transferee to put the property out of the reach of the creditors.
Gujarat High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 5 - A M Kapadia - Full Document

State Bank Of Travancore vs A.K. Nanan And Anr. on 16 August, 1966

5. Considering the recitals in the plaint, as already stated, it can only be held that two cases in the alternative were pleaded by the Bank: one, that the sale deed was not supported by consideration in the sense that it was merely nominal or benami intended to secrete the properties from the creditors; and two, that in case it was found otherwise, viz., that the sale was not merely nominal, then it might be declared as a fraudulent transaction to defeat or delay the creditors of the first defendant. A similar plaint containing similar prayers was interpreted by the Supreme Court in this manner in Abdul Shukoor Saheb v. Arji Papa Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1150. The suit is therefore one under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Kerala High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Ouseph Skaria Of Naduvilaparambil And ... vs Cherian Joseph Of Pooppallil And Ors. on 5 November, 1964

15. There having been an attachment of the properties, an attachment which, in any view of the matter, was not void but was effective so long as it was not set aside, and claims made in respect of this attachment having been allowed, it follows that the plaintiff has a right of suit under Order XXI, Rule 63. And this he has whether the gift deeds in favour of the appellants were sham or were merely fraudulent within the meaning of section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. See Abdul Shukoor v. Arji Papa Rao, AIR 1963 S C 1150 at p. 1159.
Kerala High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next