<?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>1954 (4) TMI 75 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469818</link>
    <description>For Section 9(1) of the Presidency-towns Insolvency Act, &quot;creditor&quot; has a wider meaning and is not confined to the original decree-holder. An assignee of a decree, including an equitable assignee who has obtained leave under Order 21 Rule 16 CPC to execute the decree, steps into the decree-holder&#039;s shoes and may maintain an insolvency notice so long as the amount is due in respect of the decree. The court held that the statutory scheme does not require the decree to have been passed in favour of the person issuing the notice. The assignee&#039;s insolvency notice was therefore competent, and the challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Apr 1954 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2026 11:51:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=910289" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1954 (4) TMI 75 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469818</link>
      <description>For Section 9(1) of the Presidency-towns Insolvency Act, &quot;creditor&quot; has a wider meaning and is not confined to the original decree-holder. An assignee of a decree, including an equitable assignee who has obtained leave under Order 21 Rule 16 CPC to execute the decree, steps into the decree-holder&#039;s shoes and may maintain an insolvency notice so long as the amount is due in respect of the decree. The court held that the statutory scheme does not require the decree to have been passed in favour of the person issuing the notice. The assignee&#039;s insolvency notice was therefore competent, and the challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Apr 1954 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469818</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>