RM. NL. RAMASWAMI CHETTIAR AND OTHERS. versus THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER, RAMANATHAPURAM AT MADURAI & OTHERS

Citation: [1960] 1 S.C.R. 616 · Decided: 28-08-1959 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.K. DAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

'959 
Babulal Parate 
v. 
The State of 
Bombay 
and Another 
S. K. Das ]. 
I959 
August 28. 
616 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)] 
the Bill that it was in reality a new bill and therefore 
a fresh reference was necessary. 
It is advisable, perhaps, to add a few more words 
about Art. 122( 1) of the Constitution. Learned counsel 
for the appellant has posed before us the question as 
to what would be the effect of that Article if in 
any Bill completely unrelated to any of the matters 
referred to in Cls. (a) to (e) of Art. 3 an amendment 
was t!l be proposed and accepted changing (for example) 
the name of a State. We do not think that we need 
answer such a hypothetical question except merely to 
say that if an amendment is of such a character that 
it is not really an amendment and is clearly violative 
of Art. 3, the question then will be not the validity of 
proceedings in Parliament but the violation of a con-
situtional provision. That, however, is not the position 
in the present case. 
For these reasons, we hold that there was no viola-
tion of Art. 3 and the Act or any of its provisions are 
not invalid on that ground. 
The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed with 
costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
RM. NL. RAMASW AMI CHE1'TIAR AND OTHERS. 
v. 
THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER, 
RAMANATHAPURAM AT MADURAI & OTHERS 
(S. K. DAs, A. K. SARKAR and K. SuBBA RAo, JJ.) 
Insolvency--Decree-holder assigning decree-Adjudication as 
insolvent on ground of assignment being fraudulent preference-Whe-
ther upon adjudication decree vests in Official Receiver-Order 
annulling assignment-If relates back to date of assignment-Execu-
tion applications made by assignee before annulment order, whether 
incompetent-Official Receiver making application for execution 
after annulment order-Limitation- -Whether limitation saved by 
applications made by assignee-Indian Limitation Act, r908 (V of 
r908)--Provinciat Insolvency Act r920 (V of r920), ss. 28 and 54. 
On May 9, 1935, one V obtained a decree against R and 
later assigned the same in favour of his mother M. M made an 
application for an order recognising her as the assignee and for 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
617 
execution which was disposed of on September 27, r937. 
In 
z959 
1939, V was adjudicated an insolvent on the ground that the 
f 
1 
f 
Th 
f 
M 
d 
Ramaswami 
assignment was a raudu ent pre erence. 
erea ter 
ma e a 
. 
second application for execution which was disposed of on 
Cihettiar 
September 30, 1940. The Official Receiver who had been ap~oint-
:· 
. 
ed receiver in insolvency applied under s. 54 of the Provincial The Official Receiver 
Insolvency Act and on April, 9, 1943 obtained an order annulling 
the assignment. On September 27, 1943, the Receiver applied 
for execution of the decree relying upon the applications made 
by M to save limitation under art. 182, Limitation Act. The 
judgment debtor objected that the execution application was 
time barred because, in view of the orders in the insolvency 
proceedings, M was not entitled to the decree on the dates she 
applied for execution and her applications were incompetent and 
could not save limitation. The judgment debtor contended that 
(i) the order of annulment related back to the date of assignment 
and consequently M had never been entitled to the decree, (ii) 
the order of adjudication had the effect itself of annulling the 
assignment and vesting the decree in the receiver from the date 
of presentation of the application for adjudication, and (iii) the 
receiver was not entitled to take advantage of the applications 
made by M as he was not claiming through her but against her. 
Held, (per curiam) that the application for execution made 
by the receiver was within time as the previous applications 
made by M were competent and saved the limitation. The 
assignment in favour of M stood till it was annulled and till then 
M had the right to execute the decree. Even if the annulment 
related back to the date of assignment, it did not make illegal the 
exercise of the rights under the assignment made prior to the 
annulment. Sub-sections (2) and (7) of s. 28 of the Provincial 
Insolvency Act which provided that upon adjudication all the 
assets of the insolvent vested in the receiver with effect from 
the date of the application for adjudication, could not have the 
effect of vesting the decree in the receiver. The order of adjudic-
ation, though it was based on the ground that the assignment 
was a fraudule

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.