AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
12 paragraphs · 282 words(After dealing with the question of fact the judgment proceeded.) A legal point as to the scope of Section 53,. Provincial Insolvency Act of
1920, has been taken before us, viz., that under it the Official Receiver is not at liberty to attack a transfer from a transferee of the insolvent. The
language of the section, favours this view since it is the ""transferrer"" who is the insolvent. This view is supported by a ruling reported in Sudha v.
Firm Nanakchand-Daulatram A. I. R. 1925 Lah. 295, and the ruling of Oldfield, J., in C. M. A. No. 159 of 1918 reported in Jagannatha
Ayyangar v. Narayana Ayyangar [1919] 52 I. C. 761. We are inclined to agree with the remarks of the latter on this point in that judgment
including the ground on which he distinguishes the English cases cited by him, but may point out that in both the cases In re Vansittart; Ex parte
Brown [1893] 2 Q. B. 377, and In re Brall; Ex parte Norton [1893] 2 Q. B. 381; the transfer was upheld and not set aside as Oldfield, J., states.
A more recent case In re Hart; Ex parte Green [1912] 3 K. B. 6 has been cited to us, which carries out the principle laid down in the two
Queen''s Bench cases and applies it even to a case where the transfer from the original donee from the insolvent was subsequent to the act of
bankruptcy. We need not, however, pursue the matter further here.
We allow the appeals and set aside the lower Court''s order in toto and dismiss the Official Receiver''s petitions with costs throughout in all the
three cases.