9911796707
TMI Blog1921 (10) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vency Act; (3) as within Section 55 of the Insolvency Act as being without consideration. The learned judge found against the Official Assignee on all these points and he appeals. Certain bales were pledged in October 1918 by the Insolvent firm to Egappa Chetty to whom the former owed ₹ 1,35,000. These bales were deposited with the pledgee and the validity of this pledge is in no way questioned by the learned Advocate General who appeared for the Official Assignee. The question is as to the balance remaining after the pledgee has taken his debt out of the money realized by sale of the bales pledged to him. The insolvent purported to create a second charge in favour of two Nattukottai Chetties on the same bales by means of a certain le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or assented to this and we should think it extremely unlikely) by the letter of charge, the Nattukottai Chetties have allowed 'goods' belonging to themselves to be in the possession, order or disposition of the insolvents, under such circumstances that the latter is the reputed owner thereof. In other words, the 2nd charge though the property of the Nattukottai Chetties is to be taken away from them and the value of it applied for the benefit of the general body of creditors. 2. The only point argued before us of the three set out above was (2). The first question therefore for decision is premising that what the insolvents only dealt with was left after their pledge to Egappa i. e. the equity of redemption, did the 2nd charge hol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (as it is called) vested in the pledgee. This is an undisputed proposition and does not carry the case further than to furnish legal authority for the insolvents to create a second charge on the pledged bales. The second case was Ex parte Roy In re. Sillence (1877) 7 Ch-D. 70 where it was held that the bankrupt could not create a lien (as claimed by his creditor) over certain horses as the latter were not his. They were however in his order and disposition by consent of the true Owner. 3. In my opinion this case is totally different from the present. It is not contended that the goods or that the equity of redemption in the goods after they were pledged did not belong to the insolvents and they were not at perfect liberty to deal with thos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ;goods' actual, tangible concrete things-not intangibles such as an equity of redemption. It is clear that in the chapter (IX) on bailments in the Contract Act 'goods' must have this significance. In this connection the proviso to the clause is important:--Provided that things in action other than debts due or growing due to the insolvent in the course of his trade or business shall not be deemed goods within the meaning of clause (c). 'Thus debts of the specified character are expressly excepted from' 'things in action' which are not to be deemed 'goods'. 4. It has been held that shares and share certificates are not 'goods'. Lalit v. Haridas (1916) 24 C.L.J. 335 The judgment of Fry L. J. in Col ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this point The Mercantile Bank of India Limited, Madras v. The Official Assignee, Madras I.L.R(1913) Mad. 250. These considerations seem to me to clearly conclude the matter on this point against the appellant and I have no hesitation in holding that an equity of redemption is not ' goods ' within the mischief of clause (c). 5. The learned Advocate General however argued another point. On 12th April 19 20 the Official Assignee moved before the Judge in Insolvency for an order declaring a certain transfer of goods made on 12th December 1918 by these same insolvents in favour of A. R. A. Swaminatha Pillai fraudulent and void under Section 56 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. This was dismissed on 30th July 1920, but was subsequ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
