Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

In Re: Tilak Chand Koyal

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Aug 12, 1941
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/872994

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kolkata
Decided On
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Tilak Chand Koyal

Legal References

Cases Referred
Satyanarin v. Behari Lal
Reported In
AIR1942Cal342a

Excerpt

- orderpanckridge, j.1. in my opinion, it cannot be said that there was any consideration for the transfer in the present case. therefore, the deed of 13th july 1938, prima facie falls within the scope of section 55, presidency towns insolvency act. at the same time, i think it follows from the decision of the privy council in satyanarin v. behari lal that the section, does not apply to property over which an insolvent in his capacity as karta or trustee has a disposing power, at any rate with regard to the shares of other persons interested in it. in these circumstances i think that all that the official assignee is entitled to is a declaration that the deed is void in so far as it purports to affect the share of the insolvent in the property transferred by the deed. i do not think that he is entitled to an immediate order for possession, and he must, if he sees fit, assert his right against the trustees and the other beneficiaries under the deed in other proceedings. the official assignee will get his costs out of the estate, certified for counsel. no other order as to costs.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Panckridge, J.

1. In my opinion, it cannot be said that there was any consideration for the transfer in the present case. Therefore, the deed of 13th July 1938, prima facie falls within the scope of Section 55, Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. At the same time, I think it follows from the decision of the Privy Council in Satyanarin v. Behari Lal that the section, does not apply to property over which an insolvent in his capacity as karta or trustee has a disposing power, at any rate with regard to the shares of other persons interested in it. In these circumstances I think that all that the Official Assignee is entitled to is a declaration that the deed is void in so far as it purports to affect the share of the insolvent in the property transferred by the deed. I do not think that he is entitled to an immediate order for possession, and he must, if he sees fit, assert his right against the trustees and the other beneficiaries under the deed in other proceedings. The Official Assignee will get his costs out of the estate, certified for counsel. No other order as to costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial