Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.32 seconds)
Documents citing Shah Sukraj vs The Official Assignee, Madras on 20 December, 1977

Official Assignee vs Mr. S.Shanmugam on 8 September, 2016

10. The learned counsel appearing for the Official Assignee would also draw my attention to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Shah Sukraj v. The Official Assignee, Madras, reported in 9/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Appl.Nos.27, 28, 29 and 30 of 2021 in IP No.8 of 2019 Vol 91 LW 118, wherein the Division Bench after referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rm.NL. Ramaswami Chettiar and Others v. The Official Receiver, Ramanathapuram, reported in AIR 1960 SC 70, had held that once a debtor is found to have committed an act of insolvency under Section 9(1)(b) of the Act, the very transfer which constituted the act of insolvency need not be separately adjudicated upon as coming within the scope of Section 55 of the Act and the fact of adjudication itself would invalidate the transfer. While doing so, the Division Bench observed as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - R Subramanian - Full Document

Babubhai And Ors. vs Gangji Jesang Cheda on 9 August, 1982

Similarly in the case of Shah Sukrai v. Official Assignee, Madras , a Division Bench of the Madras High Court following the above Supreme Court decision held that once a particular transfer has been found to be an act of insolvency and the adjudication is based on that transfer. though it is necessary for the Official Assignee to file a separate application to avoid the transfer, the moment such an application has been filed, the annulling of the transfer must follow as matter of course of proof of the order of adjudication itself without anything more. In other words, an order of adjudication itself does not annul the transfer, a separate order on an application made by the Official Assignee is necessary of annulling the transfer. But once such an application is made the order of annulling follows as a matter of course on proof of adjudication itself.
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - S V Manohar - Full Document
1