Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.27 seconds)Section 37 in The Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 [Entire Act]
Section 21 in The Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 [Entire Act]
Section 10 in The Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 [Entire Act]
Section 61 in The Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 [Entire Act]
Subbaiah Goundan vs Ramasami Goundan And Ors. on 5 November, 1952
In the present case no order of vesting was passed by the Court. So according to the plain words of the Section, all payments made by the Receiver to the creditors are valid. No question of sale or dispositions of other property by the Receiver arise for consideration in this case. In the absence of any order of vesting, the assets of the deceased in the hands of the Official Receiver reverted to the heirs subject to such rights and liabilities as the debtor had. The rights of the creditors, if any are neither enlarged or impaired by the order of annulment. The Section validates all the sales and dispositions made by the Receiver or the Court prior to the annulment, and provides that the rest of the property reverts to the debtor. The latter is free to deal with it to the extent of his interest as if he had not been adjudged an insolvent. As Court in Subbaiah v. Ramasami, , the consequence of annulling an order of adjudication is to wipe out altogether the insolvency and its effect, except to the limited extent preserved under Section 37.
The Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920
Nooney Veeraraju vs Boda Venkataratnam on 11 January, 1955
A Division Bench of the Andhra High Court in Veeraraju v. Venkataratnam, (S) took the same view and affirmed that the effect of annulment relates back to the date of adjudication and that the property does no merely revest in the insolvent.
Section 21 in Presidency-towns Insolvency Act, 1909 [Entire Act]
1