https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285555 Section 28(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act was construed as restricting only suits or other legal proceedings that seek relief against the insolvent's property, not a purely personal money claim in personam. On that basis, a creditor's second appeal on a bare debt claim did not require prior leave of the insolvency court, and the receiver was not a necessary party. Section 59(d) was read consistently with that view by confining the receiver's powers to proceedings relating to the insolvent's property. The decree obtained in such a personal action remained valid, and the decretal debt was provable in insolvency. en-us Mon, 24 Aug 1959 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Jan 2020 14:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285555 Section 28(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act was construed as restricting only suits or other legal proceedings that seek relief against the insolvent's property, not a purely personal money claim in personam. On that basis, a creditor's second appeal on a bare debt claim did not require prior leave of the insolvency court, and the receiver was not a necessary party. Section 59(d) was read consistently with that view by confining the receiver's powers to proceedings relating to the insolvent's property. The decree obtained in such a personal action remained valid, and the decretal debt was provable in insolvency. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 24 Aug 1959 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285555