Dismissed

Mrs.v.Mariammal v. the Official Assignee

Madras HC9 Dec 2016OSA/247/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed an appellant's appeal to set aside a 1996 property transfer. Upholding the Single Judge, the court held Section 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 barred the claim as the appellant sought to reopen the transaction belatedly to defeat creditor interests.

What did the court decide?

The original side appeal C.M.P.No.19607 of 2016 and main appeal stands dismissed with no costs.

Mrs.v.Mariammal Vs the Official Assignee — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 09.12.2016

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The Hon'ble MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

The Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶7

O.S.A. No.247 of 2016
V.Mariammal ... Appellant
-vs-
1.The Official Assignee
High Court, Madras 600 104.
2.K.Gnaneswaran
3.The Branch Manager,
State Bank of Travancore,
Anna Nagar West Exten. Branch,
Chennai 600 101. ... Respondents
Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of O.S. Rules read
with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated
10.08.2016 passed in Application 206 of 2009 in I.P.No.181 of
1997 on the file of original side of this Court.

¶8

For Appellant : Mr.M.Chidambaram

¶9

J U D G M E N T

¶10

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶11

The appellant, as insolvent, seeks to set aside the transfer made by herself on 07.02.1996 in favour of the third party / second respondent in respect of immovable property owned by her. The plea is that this transfer was effectuated by fraud and coercion and had been included in the appellant's debtor petition.

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

2.The Official Assignee himself stated that the endeavour of the appellant was hit by Section 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, a stand which was naturally supported by the second respondent.

¶14

3.In so far as the rights of respondent no.3 / bank are concerned, they are stated to have been crystallized, as the property had been mortgaged to the bank in respect of which orders are passed on 10.12.2012.

¶15

4.The endeavour of the appellant has been unsuccessful as per the impugned order dated 10.08.2016 with the learned Single Judge noticing that the appellant had filed A.No.206 of 2009 after more than ten years and in view of judicial pronouncements, Section 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, would come into play. The rights of the bank as per order dated 10.12.2012 have been protected by stating that the sale was upheld but subject to the mortgage of respondent no.3/bank.

¶16

5.In our view, the learned Single Judge has rightly concluded that the appellant was aware of all the facts and is now seeking to rake up the issue belatedly to cause loss to the third party, having completed the transaction herself, albeit within the window of two years prior to the claim to declare herself as insolvent. If we may state, normally this provision is available for the benefit of creditors to prevent the insolvent from fraudulently dealing with property so as to defeat the claims made against him. But, in the present case, it is the debtor herself who seeks to reopen the transaction.

¶17

6.We find no ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge in the appeal.

¶18

7.Original Side Appeal, accordingly, stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.19607 of 2016 also stands dismissed.

¶19

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS V)

¶20

//True Copy//

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

(sra)

¶24

¶25

1.The Sub Assistant Registrar, Original Side, Madras High Court, Chennai.

¶26

2.The Official Assignee, High Court, Madras-104.

¶27

+1cc to Mr.M.Chidambaram, Advocate Sr.72435
O.S.A.No.247 of 2016
kgk[co]
srg 23/12/2016

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Mrs.v.Mariammal v. the Official Assignee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.v.Mariammal v. the Official Assignee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. R. Jayakaran Isaac Vs the Church of South India

V. Manoharan Vs S.R.K. Prasad, Director

S.Ramasamy, Vs The Commissioner

M/s.Sathrasala Venkatachalam Vs The Secretary to Government

P.T.Loganathan, Vs The District Collector

Sulaiman Zakariah Avenue Vs The Commissioner