https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458764 An appeal could not be prosecuted after the appellants were adjudicated insolvent where the Official Assignee was unable to furnish security for costs or proceed with the matter, so the appeal failed. Money deposited in court under a consent order staying execution was treated as security for the party ultimately entitled under the appeal, not as property of the insolvents under Section 52(2)(a) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909. The deposit therefore did not vest in the Official Assignee and was payable to the respondents' attorneys with accrued interest in partial satisfaction of the decree. en-us Tue, 27 May 1924 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 Nov 2024 13:00:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458764 An appeal could not be prosecuted after the appellants were adjudicated insolvent where the Official Assignee was unable to furnish security for costs or proceed with the matter, so the appeal failed. Money deposited in court under a consent order staying execution was treated as security for the party ultimately entitled under the appeal, not as property of the insolvents under Section 52(2)(a) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909. The deposit therefore did not vest in the Official Assignee and was payable to the respondents' attorneys with accrued interest in partial satisfaction of the decree. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 27 May 1924 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458764