Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.20 seconds)
K.M.K.R.K.R. Ramanadhan Chettiar By ... vs P.L.V.V.R. Subramania Chettiar And ... on 27 August, 1924
cites
Ramanathan Chettiar vs Subramania Sastrial And Ors. on 27 February, 1902
It must be taken, having regard to the decision in Ramanathan Chettiar v. Subramania Sastrial (1902) ILR 26 M 179 at 181, that the assets were realised only on the 29th September, 1909, within the meaning of Section 295 of the old Code. There is no doubt a change in the corresponding provision of Section 73 of the present Code. But so far as the question before me is concerned, the change in the language is immaterial. The purchase-money becomes the asset of the judgment-debtor only when the balance is received and not when the deposit is made. "
Section 51 in The Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 [Entire Act]
The Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920
Hafez Mahomed Ali Khan And Anr. vs Damodar Paramanick on 27 January, 1891
In Hafez Mahomed Ali Khan v. Damodar Pramanick (1891) ILR 18 C 242 it was held that, when property is sold in execution of a decree, the sale proceeds may be said to be assets realised only when the balance of the purchase-money is paid and not when 25 per cent is deposited in Court.
Arimuthu Chetty vs Vayapuri Pandaram on 8 December, 1910
In the case in Arimuthu Chetti v. Vyapuri Pandaram (1910) ILR 35 M 588 : 21 MLJ 505, where the purchaser made the deposit on the 17th September, 1909, and the balance of the purchase-money was paid into Court on the 29th September, 1909, it was stated by Abdur Rahim, J. "
1