Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.46 seconds)
P.L.N.K.M. Nagappa Chettiar vs The Official Assignee Of Madras, As The ... on 21 August, 1930 cites

The Official Assignee Of Madras vs T. Krishnaji Bhat, Minor By His Father ... on 6 December, 1929

The same case of Tawker & Sons came on appeal before Reilly and Cornish, JJ., in Official Assignee of Madras v. Krishnaji Bhat (1929) 59 M.L.J. 718 and Reilly, J., disposed of this argument in the same manner, holding, no doubt quite rightly, that a relationship of debtor and creditor had not, "superseded, overwhelmed and obliterated" Tawker & Sons' trusteeship. Both the trusteeship and the relationship of debtor and creditor were there, though they may have been combined in the same individuals; and we have been referred to no authority for the proposition that, when so combined, the legal effect is different from what it would be when the individuals are separate.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

T. Krishnajee Bhat vs Sadasiva Tawker And Ors. on 18 August, 1926

4. Abdur Rahim, J., took the same view, observing that the effect of the directions to invest the money was that Arbuthnot & Co. were authorised to use the money as their own and to that extent they became debtors to the beneficiaries. The position of course would have been totally different if the investment had been in breach of the terms of the trust. This decision was dissented from by Kumaraswami Sastri, J., in Krishnaji Bhat v. Sadasiva Tawker (1926) 24 L.W. 869, where a father had left Rs. 10,000 with Messrs. Tawker & Sons to be invested in the business as trust money for the benefit of his minor son. He held that the firm of Tawker & Sons were trustees in respect of that sum of money, not debtors, so that upon their insolvency the Official Assignee had to give priority to that claim over the claims of creditors.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

The Official Assignee Of Madras And Ors. vs B. Krishnaswami Naidu And Ors. on 28 September, 1909

3. His contention on the, first point, which, as I have said, has been decided against him, is that, so soon as the money was authorisedly invested in the business, it ceased to be subject to the trust, which became impressed upon a corresponding debt due from the insolvent to the trustees. We have to look very carefully at the subject-matter of the trust, and consider whether, as soon as the insolvent permissively obtained control of it for his own purposes, it did not undergo a transformation in character. As an illustration of such a transformation may be given the case where a trustee is authorised to invest trust money in ordinary joint-stock securities. Clearly the trust passes away from the money and attaches itself to the scrip representing a right to dividends or interest; and the trustee is no longer responsible for anything more than the value of the securities, whether, when the time comes to realise, it be greater or less than the original sum. Similarly, if in the present case the money had been invested not in the insolvent's firm but in a third party firm, it is conceded that, as between the trustees and that firm, the relationship would be merely one of debtor and creditor; in other words, the trust would be impressed not upon the money but upon the debt. It has been urged that the present is really a case of that description, because there are two trustees and the money was only invested with one of them; and it cannot therefore be said that the two parties to the transaction are indistinguishably one and the same. Apart from this point, Mr. V.V. Srinivasa Aiyangar's argument for the appellant is that where a trustee is permitted to make use of the trust funds, his obligation as trustee so far overrides the mere liability as debtor which he would otherwise be under that he must account for the money, as trust money, just as much as if the user had never been in contemplation and, in fact, was in breach of the trust. No English case has been cited in support of the proposition, but one or two cases of this Court have had to consider it. The earliest of these cases arose out of the Arbuthnot insolvency: Official Assignee of Madras v. Krishnaswami Naidu (1909) I.L.R. 33 M. 154. The trust deed which there came under consideration appointed the then members of the firm as trustees, and directed that the trust moneys should be placed in deposit, bearing 5 per cent, interest, with Arbuthnot & Co. Munro, J., came to the conclusion that the trustees and the banking firm could be regarded as two distinct and separate entities, when of course the liability of the Bank would be only that of a debtor. But he held further that, even regarding them as identical, there could be no difference in principle. "When, as trustees under the deed, they, as directed, invested the money in their own firm, their liability in their capacity as trustees appointed by the deed was reduced in the same manner as if they had not. been members of the firm. When the money was invested with them as bankers, the same result must, there being no reason to the contrary, have followed as would have followed had the money been invested with another bank with which they had no connection."
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1   2 Next