https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292597 A foreign insolvency adjudication was held not to displace a prior attachment obtained in Madras against the debtor's decree. Applying principles of comity and private international law, the foreign order was treated as an order of a foreign court, but the earlier attachment had already fastened on the subject-matter and created an inchoate yet protected right in favour of the attaching creditor. Assets as at the date of foreign adjudication remained subject to liabilities created by pending execution proceedings, so the foreign receiver could not take the attached decree free of that prior process. The prior attachment therefore prevailed, and execution was permitted. en-us Thu, 02 Feb 1933 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Jan 2021 10:43:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292597 A foreign insolvency adjudication was held not to displace a prior attachment obtained in Madras against the debtor's decree. Applying principles of comity and private international law, the foreign order was treated as an order of a foreign court, but the earlier attachment had already fastened on the subject-matter and created an inchoate yet protected right in favour of the attaching creditor. Assets as at the date of foreign adjudication remained subject to liabilities created by pending execution proceedings, so the foreign receiver could not take the attached decree free of that prior process. The prior attachment therefore prevailed, and execution was permitted. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 02 Feb 1933 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292597