Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.32 seconds)Section 28 in The Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 [Entire Act]
Donepudi Subramanyam vs Nune Narasimham And Ors. on 14 November, 1928
The decision in Subramanyam v. Narasimham (1928) 56 M.L.J. 489 is distinguishable. There the question was whether a decree passed in a suit instituted without leave in the absence of any objection being taken on that score is a nullity. It is unnecessary to deal with the correctness of that decision but we must express our dissent from the observations contained in the judgment in regard to the interpretation of Sections 28 and 29 of the Provincial Insolvency Act in so far as they purport to be based on the theory of ignorance of the creditor of the proceedings in insolvency. Tiruvenkata-chariar, J., in that case observes that the word "commenced" must be construed as "knowingly commenced".
Cuddappa Ghouse Khan vs Bala Subba Rowther on 12 April, 1927
In Ghouse Khan v. Bala Subba Rowther (1927) 53 M.L.J. 412: I.L.R. 51 Mad. 833 there is no doubt an observation of Odgers, J., at page 839 to the effect that leave may be obtained under Section 29 though the suit might have been instituted without the leave of the Insolvency Court but it is an obiter dictum which was not necessary for the case. Further the observation is irreconcilable with the view taken by him in regard to Section 28 of the Act that want of leave is fatal to the suit.
Mahomed Haji Essack vs Shaikh Abdul Rahman on 10 August, 1915
Both the learned Judges followed in Mahomed Haji Essack v. Abdul Rahiman (1916) I.L.R. 41 Bom.