<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1944 (11) TMI 14 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273371</link>
    <description>The principle in Ex parte Learoyd was held inapplicable to adjudication orders under the Provincial Insolvency Act because that statute differs materially from the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act and the Bankruptcy Act, 1869. Under the Provincial Insolvency Act, publication of the adjudication order in the Official Gazette is not conclusive evidence of the facts stated, adjudication relates back only to the date of presentation of the petition, and a fraudulent transfer must be annulled by a direct court order. Those differences removed the foundation for extending the earlier rule, and the revision petition was dismissed with costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Nov 1944 00:00:00 +0630</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Jun 2018 17:30:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=524409" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1944 (11) TMI 14 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273371</link>
      <description>The principle in Ex parte Learoyd was held inapplicable to adjudication orders under the Provincial Insolvency Act because that statute differs materially from the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act and the Bankruptcy Act, 1869. Under the Provincial Insolvency Act, publication of the adjudication order in the Official Gazette is not conclusive evidence of the facts stated, adjudication relates back only to the date of presentation of the petition, and a fraudulent transfer must be annulled by a direct court order. Those differences removed the foundation for extending the earlier rule, and the revision petition was dismissed with costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Nov 1944 00:00:00 +0630</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273371</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>