Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.30 seconds)
Documents citing T.K. Vasudeva Kamath And Ors. vs Nattoji Lakshminarayana Row And Ors. on 12 February, 1919

Donepudi Subramanyam vs Nune Narasimham And Ors. on 14 November, 1928

11. As to the case in Vasudeva Kamath v. Lakshminarayana Rao (1918) I.L.R. 42 M. 684 : 36 M.L.J. 453 it was there held that a suit under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act to set aside a transfer as in fraud of creditors cannot after an adjudication be instituted without leave of the Court. The discussion is meagre and the decision rests on a proposition that such a suit by a judgment-creditor would enable him to obtain satisfaction of his decree out of the property declared in the suit to be the property of the insolvent. With respect, I do not think this is a correct statement. A suit under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act proceeds on the footing that there has been a transfer although fraudulent, that is, the property has passed from the judgment-debtor. The decree in the suit will not declare that the property transferred is not the property of the transferee but that the transferee's rights are postponed to the rights of the creditors, who are entitled to have their debts satisfied out of it, first of all; if any balance of money or property is left by the creditors after satisfaction it will go not to the judgment-debtor but to the purchaser.
Madras High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Donepudi Subramannyam vs Nune Narasimham And Ors. on 14 November, 1928

10. As to the case in Vasudeva Kamath v. Nattoji Lakshminarayan Rao 52 Ind. Cas. 442 : 42 M. 684 : 36 M.L.J. 453 : 9 L.W. 475 : 26 M.L.T. 90 : (1919) M.W.N. 612 it was there held that a suit under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act to set aside a transfer as in fraud of creditors cannot, alter an adjudication, be instituted without leave of the Court. The discussion is meagre and the decision rests on a proposition that such a suit by a judgment creditor would enable him to obtain satisfaction of his decree out of the property declared in the suit to be the property of the insolvent. With respect I do not think this is a correct statement. A suit under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act proceeds en the footing that there has been a transfer although fraudulent, that is, the property has passed from the judgment-debtor. The decree in the suit will not declare that the property transferred is not the property of the transferee but that the transferee's rights are postponed to the lights of the creditors, who are entitled to have their debts satisfied out of it first of all; if any balance of money or property is left by the creditors after satisfaction it will go not to the judgment-debtor but to the purchaser.
Madras High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Donepudi Subramanyam vs Nune Narasimham And Ors. on 14 November, 1928

11. As to the case in Vasudeva Kamath v. Lakshminarayana Rao it was there held that a suit under Section 53, T.P. Act, to set aside a transfer as in fraud of creditors cannot after an adjudication be instituted without leave of the Court, The discussion is meagre and the decision rests on a proposition that such a suit by a judgment-creditor would enable him to obtain satisfaction of his decree out of the property declared in the suit to be the property of the insolvent. With respect, I do not think this is a correct statement. A suit under Section 53, T.P. Act, proceeds on the footing that there has been a transfer although fraudulent, that is, the property has passed from the judgment-debtor. The decree in the suit will not declare that the property transferred is not the property of the transferee but that the transferee's rights are postponed to the rights of the creditors, who are entitled to have their debts satisfied out of it, first of all; if any balance of money or property is left by the creditors after; satisfaction it will go not to the judgment-debtor but to the purchaser.
Madras High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ganpatrao Ramji Patil vs Jehangir Navroji on 2 February, 1938

3. It is arguable on the language of the section that a suit such as this is not as suit against the property of the insolvent, because it is a suit against a third party in whom is vested property, which, the plaintiff says, ought to be vested in the insolvent or his trustee in bankruptcy ; it is a suit therefore to increase the assets available for the payment of the insolvent's debt. However, no authority has been cited to us in support of that view of the section, and it is opposed to a decision of the High Court of Madras in Vasudeva Kamath v. Lakshminarayana Rao (1918) I.L.R. 42 Mad. 684. I agree with the reasoning in that case. I think that to allow a suit or proceeding brought by one creditor on behalf of himself and others after adjudication is opposed to the policy of the bankruptcy law, which is to vest all the property in the trustee in bankruptcy and leave the administration of it to him. I think that this suit, at any rate, falls within the general prohibition against the commencement of any suit or any legal proceeding. In my opinion, therefore, the judgment of the Court below was right.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1