Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.18 seconds)Section 37 in The Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 [Entire Act]
The Usurious Loans Act, 1918
Section 6 in The Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in The Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 [Entire Act]
Section 35 in The Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 [Entire Act]
Subbaiah Goundan vs Ramasami Goundan And Ors. on 5 November, 1952
In the first place, it is contended tht the suit is barred under the provisions of O. 2, R. 2, Civil P. c. In the second place, it is urged placing reliance on -- 'Subbaiah Goundan v. Ramaswami Goundan', (A), that because of the subsequent annulment of adjudication the right of the defedant to claim that he is an agriculturist is not lost and that he is entitled to claim in the present suit that the mortgage bond is liable to be scaled down. Thirdly, the late of interest is stated to be unconscionable and liable to be reduced under the Usurious Loans Act.
The Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920
Ps. Ar. Ar. Arunachalam Chettiar vs Narayanaswami Goundar on 16 August, 1950
(3) We propose to deal with the second contention first. On the facts above stated, it is clear that the insolvent along with his sons would be an agriculturist within the meaning of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act save for the order of adjudication and the consequential vesting of the properties in the Official Receiver. But the order of adjudication having been subsequently annulled, the question is what is the effect of the annulment as regards his claim to be treated as an agriculturist entitled to relief under that Act. This point is directly covered by an authority in favour of the appellant reported in 'Arunachalam Chettiary v. Narayanaswami Goundar', (B), an authority which was not available to the learned Subordinate Judge at the time of his decision in this case. That decision has ruled that where an adjudication is annulled under S. 35 and no vesting order is made under S. 37, Provincial Insolvency Act (5 of 1920) the property does not merely revest in the insolvent but it reverts to him, that the effect of the annulment relates back to the date of adjudication and that therefore the insolvent must be deemed to have had a saleable interest in that property for the purpose of being treated as asn agriculturist entitled to the benefits of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act.