Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.19 seconds)Section 53 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Southern Steelmet And Alloys Ltd. vs B.M. Steel, Madras on 1 February, 1978
In view of the amended
provision of Order 21, Rule 58, C.P.C. by virtue of the
amended act 104 of 1976, which has been interpreted by a
Division Bench of this Court in Southern Steelmet and Alloys v.
B.N. Sttel MANU/TN/0220/1978 : AIR 1978 Mad 270, the view
taken by the learned appellate Judge that the attaching
creditor has to put forth his contentions in a separate suit and
not in a claim proceeding, is not tenable and sustainable. Since
the learned Appellate Judge had not approached the case in
the light of the above well-established legal principles, but on
the contrary, opposed to the same, and allowed the claim, it
has become necessary for this Court to set aside the judgment
and decree of the appellate Court, and remand the matter to
the lower appellate Court for fresh disposal according to law.
Since this Court is now remanding the matter, it is needless to
express any opinion or give any finding on the question with
regard to the nature of the transaction in favour of the
claimant in view of the presumption under Section 6 of Act 15
of 1976. However, the substantial questions of law are
answered accordingly in the light of the above legal
principles.”
Section 6 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Rukkumani Ammal (Died) And Anr. vs Kamachi Ammal on 21 September, 1962
The decision relied on by the lower appellate Court in
Rukkumani Animal v. Kamachi Ammal MANU/TN/0152/1963 :
N.N.L. Ramaswami Chettiar vs Mallappa Reddiar on 29 April, 1920
It is clear from the ratio laid down in the above decisions that
the attaching creditor need not file a separate suit under
Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act in a representative
capacity to put forth his case that the transfer was in fraud of
creditors and that he is entitled to plead by way of defence in
the claim proceedings.
Section 3 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Alamelu Ammal vs Chinnaswamy Reddiar on 2 December, 1988
In this regard, it would be
appropriate to refer to the decision of this Court in Alamelu Ammal vs.
Chinnaswamy Reddiar reported in (1998) 2 MLJ 395. The relevant
observation of this Court reads as follows:-
C. Abdul Shukoor Saheb vs Arji Papa Rao And Others on 14 November, 1962
Even prior to the amended provision of Act 104 of 1976, their
Lordships of the Supreme Court in Abdul Shukoor, v. Anji
Papa Rao MANU/SC/0048/1962 : AIR 1963 SC 1150, had
observed as follows:
1