Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Court rules bank's transaction with Lakshmi Achi fraudulent preference.</h1> <h3>Nattukottai Bank Ltd., In re</h3> The court found that the transaction between the bank, Lakshmi Achi, and Veerappa Chettiar constituted a fraudulent preference. The entries in the bank's ... Winding up – Fraudulent preference Issues Involved:1. Whether the transaction constituted a fraudulent preference.2. Whether the transaction was void under Section 227(2) of the Indian Companies Act, 1913.3. Whether the official liquidator is estopped from disputing the transaction.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Whether the transaction constituted a fraudulent preference.The official liquidator argued that the transaction between the bank, Lakshmi Achi, and Veerappa Chettiar was an act of fraudulent preference. The bank was insolvent and unable to pay its debts as they became due. The entries made in the bank's books suggested that Veerappa Chettiar had repaid his overdraft, and Lakshmi Achi had been paid her fixed deposit amount. The liquidator contended that this arrangement was made to prefer Lakshmi Achi over other creditors.Lakshmi Achi denied any knowledge of the bank's financial condition and claimed that the bank was legally bound to pay her the matured fixed deposit. Veerappa Chettiar asserted that he was unaware of the bank's insolvency and had acted in good faith.The court noted that the bank had stopped its business operations and was in a dire financial state long before the winding-up petition was presented. Evidence showed that both Lakshmi Achi and Veerappa Chettiar were aware of the bank's insolvency. The court found no substantial evidence of pressure exerted by Lakshmi Achi on the bank for payment. The suspicious circumstances surrounding the transaction, such as the lack of signatures on the pay-in slips and the timing of the entries in the bank's books, supported the liquidator's claim.The court concluded that the transaction was a fraudulent preference, as the dominant intention was to favor Lakshmi Achi over other creditors.Issue 2: Whether the transaction was void under Section 227(2) of the Indian Companies Act, 1913.Section 227(2) states that any disposition of the company's property made after the commencement of the winding-up process is void unless the court orders otherwise. The evidence showed that the entries in the bank's books were made after the winding-up petition was filed, making the transaction void under this section.The court also examined whether the transaction could stand if it had been effected before the winding-up petition. It was argued that the intention behind the transaction was to prefer Lakshmi Achi, which is sufficient to deem it invalid under Section 231(1) of the Indian Companies Act, 1913. The court found that the bank's managing director had no other purpose than to benefit Lakshmi Achi, making the transaction a fraudulent preference.Issue 3: Whether the official liquidator is estopped from disputing the transaction.Veerappa Chettiar argued that the official liquidator was estopped from disputing the transaction because he had admitted Veerappa Chettiar's claim as a creditor and declared a dividend on the amount standing to his credit. The court rejected this argument, stating that the liquidator's actions were based on Section 43 of the Banking Companies Act, which presumes claims to be proved unless there is reason to doubt their correctness. The liquidator had informed Veerappa Chettiar that his admission as a creditor was subject to the fraudulent preference claim.The court found no estoppel and concluded that the transaction was void and amounted to a fraudulent preference. Veerappa Chettiar was ordered to pay the full amount due to the bank with interest, and Lakshmi Achi was entitled to rank as an ordinary creditor for the amount due on her fixed deposit. The respondents were also ordered to pay the official liquidator's costs.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found