Thirupuram vs A.Natarajan on 13 December, 2011
28. The decisions in Ramagopal v. Muthukrishna [AIR 1957 Mad.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.61 seconds)Documents citing
Ramagopal Naicker vs Muthukrishna Ayyar And Anr. on 20 July, 1956
C.P. Janammal vs C.M. Ranganathan on 9 March, 1972
As has been held in Ramagopal Naicker v. Muthukrishna Iyer, the effect of vesting order is that so far as the properties are concerned, the insolvent completely goes out of the picture and his ownership therein ceases and the property becomes fully vested in the Official Assignee. It is no doubt true that the effect of annulment of the adjudication was to bring about the state of affairs as if there had never been an adjudication. That will be the position if the court passes an order of unconditional annulment. But if the court, as in this case, passed a conditional order of annulment vesting the property in the Official Assignee notwithstanding the annulment, it cannot be said that there is a complete annulment of the adjudication. In the event of an unconditional order of annulment, the insolvent is restored to the position as he was before the adjudication, both in relation to his creditors and with reference to his properties. But if the annulment is made conditional on the insolvent's property vesting in the Official Assignee, it is not possible to say that the insolvent is restored to the position as he was with reference to his properties. In this case the court has ordered annulment but directed the vesting of the property in the Official Assignee. By virtue of such vesting of the insolvent's property in the Official Assignee the effect of insolvency are wiped out only partly and not completely. I am, therefore, of the opinion that, in view of the specific order of the court directing the continuance of the property of the insolvent in the Official Assignee, it will not be open to the Official Assignee to abandon or close the administration of the insolvent's estate except as provided in the Act, having the result of revesting the property to the insolvent. In any event, the lower court having specifically found that there is no evidence of abandonment of the closure of the administration of the insolvent's estate by the Official Assignee in this case, the decision in cannot apply.
N. Janardhanam (Deceased) vs Tiruchirapalli Cooperative Building on 28 March, 2003
21.The respondents also relied upon the case of Ramagopal Naicker Vs.
Muthukrishna Ayyar and another (1957-Madras-1-AIR-V-44-C-1-Jan) and Kripa Nath
and another Vs. Ganga Prasad and others (AIR-1962Allahabad-256).
A. Venku Dikshitulu vs Gundu Subbayya Setti And Anr. on 11 February, 1959
In Ramgopal Naicker v. Muthukrishna Ayyar, , following the judgment now under appeal, it was laid down by a Bench of the Madras High Court that an acknowledgment of liability of a debt due by a person by the Official Receiver, in whom the insolvent's estate vests, is an acknowledgment within the ambit of Section 19 of the Limitation Act and as such would save limitation. Although that decision bore on the applicability of Section 19 of the Limitation Act, it would apply in full vigour to Section 20 also, since the question in both the cases concerns the power of the Official Receiver either to acknowledge or to make payment so as to furnish a fresh cause of action.
1