Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.49 seconds)
Sajja Jaganmohan Rao vs Uppalapati Babu Rao And Ors. on 25 April, 1975 cites

Sri Raja Vatsavaya Venkata ... vs The Official Receiver, East Godavari ... on 23 February, 1965

In making this observation, in our view, the Bench did not propose to draw a distinction between the effect of an attachment of the sons' interest in the joint familv before adjudication and after the adjudication of the father as an insolvent. No doubt, the Bench observed that the attachment of the sons' share in the joint family properties prior to the adiudication of the father as an insolvent makes all the difference. By stating so what the Bench really pointed out was that if the father is adjudged insolvent before the son's interest in the joint familv is attached, not only the father's share but also the father's power of disposal of the sons' share vests in the Official Receiver. But if the attachment is before adiudication only the share of the father vests in the Official Receiver and not the power of the father to sell the sons' interest for, that power of the father to dispose of the sons' interest is lost due to the prior attachment and conseauently does not vest on adjudication in the Official Receiver. But after adjudication if the Official Receiver fails to exercise the power of the father to alienate the sons' interest before attachment, just as the father's power of disposal is lost, the Official Receiver's power of disposal is also lost. It is this aspect that was sought to be emphasized and that observation was not meant to strike a different note from what was held in Raja Vatsavaya Venkata Suryanarayana Jagapathi Raiu Bahadur v. The Official Receiver. East Godavari, . In our view, there is no real conflict in these two decisions.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 16 - Cited by 2 - P S Raju - Full Document

Nori Ramasastrulu vs Teluguntla Balakrishna Rao And Anr. on 28 July, 1942

The power of the father to dispose of his son's share in the joint family properties by private sale, however, subsists only so long as there is no disruption of the joint family status. That power comes to an end when that status is disturbed either by the institution of a suit for partition by the sons or by the attachment of the son's interest in the joint family properties by a creditor, just as the father's power to alienate the son's interest is extinguished on the happening of any of the abovementioned contingencies, so also the power of the Official Receiver comes to an end. for the power of the Official Receiver in this behalf is co-extensive with that of the father. If before the exercise of this power by the Official Receiver any of the above contingencies occur, i.e., the joint family status is disrupted by actual partition, or by the institution of a suit for partition, or by the attachment of the son's interest by any creditor, then the Official Receiver cannot proceed to dispose of the son's interest by private sale This view consistently expressed in the various decisions of the Madras High Court prior to the decision in Ramasas-trulu v. Balakrishna, AIR 1942 Mad 682 (FB) is in our opinion, the correct view The said position is made plain by Section 28-A of the Provincial Insolvency Act inserted by the Provincial Insolvency Amendment Act XXV of 1948 which was necessitated by a divergent note struck by the decision in Ramasastrulu v. Balakrishna, AIR 1942 Mad 682 (FB). Whether the attachment of the son's interest is before the adjudication of the father as an insolvent or after the adjudication, it makes no difference so far as the son's interest in the joint family properties is concerned. Once there is an attachment of the son's interest by a creditor whe-the before or after the adjudication the Official Receiver's power to dispose of their interest or share by private sale is lost, that power could have been exercised only before the attachment.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Mutha Subbarao And Ors. vs The Official Receiver, West Godawari At ... on 4 January, 1963

The learned Judges expressed dissent from the view expressed by Venkate-sam. J. in Subbarao v. Official Receiver. West Godavari, in so far as he declared tihat if the order of adjudication made after attachment but before sale, the property vests in the Official Receiver for the benefit of the general body of creditors, and the attaching creditor is not entitled to obtain satisfaction of his decree by sale of the attached property. We are also of the view that this observation of Venkatesam, J. is not correct.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 31 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Cheruvu Nageswaraswami vs Rajah Vadrevu Viswasundara Raoand ... on 18 May, 1953

25. It was, however, argued before us that the vesting of such a power of the father in the Official Receiver in fact vested the share of the insolvent's sons in the Official Receiver. It was urged placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nageswaraswami v. Viswasundara, that the power of the father to alienate the sons' interest in the joint family estate is itself having been deemed to be 'property' within the meaning of the Provincial Insolvency Act, the sons' share of the property as such passes to the Official Receiver and therefore notwithstanding the subsequent attachment of the sons' interest in the joint family, the Official Receiver can proceed against the sons' share of the property. We do not agree with this contention; all that the Supreme Court in that decision declared was that the power of the father to alienate the sons' share vests in the Official Receiver as 'Property'. Moreover, while so observing the Supreme Court was not considering this particular aspect of the matter but was only dealing with the question whether Section 28-A was retrospective or prospective in its operation and held that it was 'retrospective'.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 14 - B K Mukherjea - Full Document

The Official Receiver vs M.R.M.K.A.R.R.M. Arunachalam ... on 15 November, 1933

A Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Official Receiver v. Arunachalam, AIR 1934 Mad 217 dealt with a case where the property of a Joint Hindu Family comprising of father alone (sic). But before the sale was effected in execution of the decree against the father he was adjudged insolvent. The property of the father was, however, brought to sale by the decree-holder without any objection being taken by the sons. The Bench held :
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Rm. Ar. Ar. Rm. Arunachalam Chettiar ... vs Sabaratnam Chettiar And Ors. on 9 February, 1939

In Arunachalam v. Sabaratnam. AIR 1939 Mad 572, Leach. C. J. considered a case where a monev decree was obtained on 24th September. 1931 against the father and his five sons who constituted a Joint Hindu family. Even before the decree, the father was adjudged as an insolvent. The Official Receiver sought to brine the whole of the familv properties to sale for the benefit of the creditors on the ground that the son's shares in those properties were available for the discharge of the father's debts on the principle of Hindu Law that the sons are liable for their father's debts. The decree-holder instituted proceedings in execution of Ms decree and praved for the attachment of the shares of the sons in the family properties and the properties were attached. He also applied to the Court to restrain the Official Receiver from proceeding to sell the shares of the sons in the attached properties. While the Subordinate Judge allowed the Official Receiver to sell the sons' share also subject to his depositing the sons' share of sale proceeds in Court and subsequently directed the same to be paid towards the satisfaction of the decree obtained by the appellant, on appeal to the District Judge, that order was reversed on the ground that the right to sell the properties had vested in the Official Receiver at the time of adjudication. On appeal to the High Court, Leach. C. J. speaking for the Bench observed:--
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 9 - Full Document
1   2 Next