Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.31 seconds)
Documents citing K. Venkatarama Ayyar And Five Ors. vs The Official Receiver on 20 October, 1927

Ramathai Anni vs K. Kanniappa Mudaliar And Anr. on 20 January, 1928

17. This point was specifically decided by Madhavan Nair and Jackson, JJ., in Venkatarama Aiyar v. Official Receiver, Tinnevelly (1927) I.L.R. 51 M. 344 : 54 M.L.J. 585. The learned Judges held that There is no reason why we should assume that the law according to the Provincial Insolvency Act should be understood in a different way from the law according to the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

L. Piarey Lal vs Mohammad Salamat Ullah Khan And Ors. on 19 February, 1937

In Venkatarama Aiyar v. Official Receiver A.I.R. 1928 Mad 476 it was held that an application by a debtor for adjudicating himself as an insolvent filed while he was alive could be continued and adjudication made even after his death, and in Ramathai Anni v. Kanniappa Mudaliar A.I.R. 1928 Mad. 480 it was held that Section 17, Provincial Insolvency Act, applies to the case of a debtor dying before the order of adjudication whether the petition for adjudication was presented by a debtor or by the creditor; and an order of adjudication can be passed on the petition after the debtor's death. It may also be mentioned that in that case the insolvent had died in the trial Court and his widow had been brought on the record as his legal representative and the creditor's petition was heard on the merits after overruling the widow's objection to be made a party. The appeal was also preferred by the widow and entertained by the Madras High Court without any objection having been apparently raised on behalf of the respondent that she had no right to continue the matter. It seems to us that the Madras view is in perfect consonance with the principles of English law. Section 17, Provincial Insolvency Act, provides:
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Puttathayamma vs C. Chichavenkatappa And Ors. on 15 June, 1956

It is clear from a reading of Section 17 that the Court is competent to adjudge a person as an ill-solvent even after his death and continue the proceedings. It is so held in the case reported to - 'Venkatramama Ayyar v. Official Receiver Tinnevelly', 109 Ind Cas 04; (AIR 1928 Mad 476 (2) (D) & -- 'Ramathai Anni v. Kanniapaa Muda-liar', ILR 51 Mad 495: (AIR 1928 Mad 480) (E). In the first case, it is further held that the words "proceedings in the matter" under Section 17, Insolvency Act include subsequent steps in connection with the petition of which the earliest will be 'the adjudication of the insolvent without which nothing can be done.
Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

S.A.S. Subbiah Aiyar vs The Official Receiver on 31 August, 1932

The appellant, the alienee, took inter alia the objection that the application was incompetent as his transferor had not been declared insolvent but only his estate. This objection was literally correct but only literally so. For it assumed firstly, that when proceedings are continued against the debtor after his death before the order for adjudication, the order passed under Section 17 must be not of the debtor himself but of his estate only and secondly, that when an order is passed as in the present case expressed to be adjudging the estate insolvent, it means in the circumstances something different from an order against the debtor. Both these assumptions are wrong. As to the first point, it is concluded by the authority of Venkatarama Aiyar v. The Official Receiver, Tinnevelly (1927) I.L.R. 51 Mad.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Ramesh Chandra Sil And Anr. vs Charu Chandra Mohuri And Ors. on 6 December, 1929

It has been contended before us that Section 17, Prov. Insol. Act, under which the aforesaid order was passed by the learned Judge, would not warrant the making of such an order until and unless an order of adjudication was passed. This contention was considered in two recent decisions of the Madras High Court, namely Venkatarama Aiyar v. The Official Receiver, Tinnevelly and Ramathai Anni v. Kanniappa Mudaliar A.I.R. 1928 Mad. 480. In these cases it has been held that under Section 17, Prov. Insol. Act, an application by a debtor or a creditor for adjudicating himself as an insolvent filed while he was alive can be continued and adjudication made even after his death. We are of opinion that the reasons given by the learned Judges of the Madras High Court in these two decisions are sound, and following them we hold that it was well within the competency of the learned Judge to make the order as he did. Indeed it seems to us that when the proceedings were to be continued and it was not necessary that they should be dropped, it is only right that they should go on in the presence of the heirs of Hargobinda Sil in so far as such presence was necessary for the continuance of the proceedings for the purpose of realization and distribution of the property of the debtor.
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1