9911796707
TMI Blog1939 (4) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... company security for the amount, the security being the monies to which his two brothers would each be entitled in respect of their respective subscriptions to other chit funds conducted by the company, the two brothers being sureties. In the applicant's affidavit, he states that the two brothers' non-prized tickets were to be held as security for future instalments payable by him, and the company were empowered to appropriate the amounts due to them under the two tickets belonging to the two brothers towards any future instalments if default were committed in respect of such instalments. The learned Official Liquidator has taken the objection that any arrangement which had been made between the applicant and the company together with the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been taken in respect of monies due from the applicant cannot be returned to him, the Official Liquidator is not entitled to recover from the applicant any monies due from him. In support of the contention now raised two cases were cited to me. Official Assignee v. M.C. Harikrishna and Ellis & Co.'s Trustee v. Dixon Johnson. The latter case was referred to and discussed in the Rangoon Case. The facts in the Ellis & Co.'s Case were as follows:-- The firm carried on business as stockbrokers and the defendant opened with them a speculative account and he deposited as security for any debit balances which might be owing, various bonds and shares. Ellis & Co., sold some of the shares without the knowledge, authority or consent of the defendant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the defendant firm was, as such, liable to pay all its debts. This obligation of course was also one which affected any other partner. When therefore Chaganlal entered into the arrangement with the Chettiar firm, that his deposit account should be in effect a security for the partnership debt, he was as a debtor on the one hand, being a partner, giving security for his own debt. In the Rangoon case, it was held that the Chettiar firm having become insolvent they had dissipated the security in consequence of which it could not be returned to Chaganlal in the event of the debt from the partnership being paid, and consequently the Official Assignee of the Chettiar firm not being in a better position than the firm itself before it became insolv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
