Antecedent debt. Law Web: Basic concept of "Antecedent" debt in Hindu Law 2022-10-27

Antecedent debt Rating: 8,8/10 1105 reviews

Antecedent debt refers to a debt that existed prior to a particular event or transaction. This type of debt is often relevant in legal contexts, particularly in bankruptcy proceedings, where the priority of different debts must be determined.

One key aspect of antecedent debt is that it must be established as a valid and enforceable obligation. In order for a debt to be considered antecedent, it must have been incurred by the debtor through a legally binding contract or agreement. This could include a loan agreement, a credit card agreement, or a lease agreement, among others.

In bankruptcy proceedings, antecedent debt is often given priority over other types of debt. This means that creditors with antecedent debt claims are typically paid before creditors with other types of claims. The reasoning behind this is that antecedent debt represents a pre-existing obligation that the debtor had agreed to pay, whereas other debts may have been incurred after the bankruptcy proceedings began.

There are several factors that may affect the priority of antecedent debt in bankruptcy proceedings. These include the type of debt, the nature of the creditor's claim, and the timing of the bankruptcy filing. For example, certain types of debt, such as child support payments or taxes, may be given higher priority than other types of debt. Similarly, secured creditors, who have a lien on the debtor's assets, may be given priority over unsecured creditors.

In some cases, antecedent debt may be discharged in bankruptcy proceedings. This means that the debtor is no longer required to pay the debt. However, this is generally only the case if the debtor can show that they do not have the financial means to pay the debt and that discharging the debt is necessary for their financial rehabilitation.

In conclusion, antecedent debt refers to a debt that existed prior to a particular event or transaction and is often given priority in bankruptcy proceedings. Understanding the concept of antecedent debt is important for both creditors and debtors, as it can help determine the priority of different debts and the potential for discharge in bankruptcy proceedings.

Antecedent Debts

antecedent debt

The court declined to give any relief to the alienees even in respect of the amount actually paid by them to discharge some of the debts incurred by Purushotham on the ground that the transaction has been vitiated by fraud. The doctrine of pious commitment and previous debts are concepts related to the same thing and are explained in the article. According to him, 20 acres out of 42 acres' block were fit for wet cultivation viz. B-S were worth somewhere between Rs. No other person has any such privilege. Rangaswami Naidu asking him to make demands regarding the amount due to you. The motion court granted the motion.


Next

Basic Bankruptcy Preference Terminology

antecedent debt

Purushotham, however, executed a sham, nominal and fraudulent sale deed dated 22nd August, 1955 in respect of almost all the family properties in favour of the defendants Nos. Pursuant to this agreement a sale deed was executed on 22nd August, 1955 Ext. If such bonds are drawn up in favour of respectable persons like you and if all of us join together, then the other creditors cannot do anything. A transfer does not have to benefit the recipient or reduce the value of the debtor. A debt is antecedent if it is incurred before the transfer or payment from the Debtor.

Next

Antecedent Definition

antecedent debt

He also speaks of some purchase of 3 acres and odd adjacent land in the name of his undivided brother vide Ext. This article was written by Mansi Tyagi, a student at Symbiosis Law School in Pune. B-54; 6 if Purushotham conspired with the son-in-law of D. The counsel for the respondents, on the other hand has contended that the findings recorded by the High Court are pure findings of fact based on appraisal of evidence and this Court cannot reverse the findings recorded by the last court of facts. If this limitation was well founded it would also follow that the father's power of disposing of the son's share for the satisfaction of his own debts must be likewise limited.

Next

Antecedent debt Definition

antecedent debt

The observation of the High Court that there was' no necessity for Purushotham and Sriramulu to bring into existence fictitious promissory notes in favour of D. Thus, the father has the power to sell or pledge the common family property to settle the debt, whether for his personal benefit. The ownership vests in all the copartners taken together as a unit. The first ground which weighed with the High Court for discarding the letter Ext. B-49 was executed for Rs. Purushotham and Sriramulu are concerned and to the extent of Rs.

Next

Law Web: Basic concept of "Antecedent" debt in Hindu Law

antecedent debt

Some of the documents which have been attested by these witnesses, have been belied by D. It does not stand to reason why should the vendors adopt such an attitude. The other son-in-law, Rangaswami Naidu, D. A legally enforceable obligation, which has been in existence prior to the time in question, to reimburse another with money or property. The validity of an alienation made to discharge an antecedent debt rests upon the pious duty of the son to discharge his father's debt not tainted with immorality. But under the Indian Statute of Limitation Act, 1963, when the debt to the father was prescribed, sons no longer have the pious obligation to pay such debts. It was further alleged that except the two mortgages mentioned in the sale deed the other debts shown as consideration were false and fictitious.

Next

Antecedent Debt

antecedent debt

Chinnappa Mudaliar had filed a petition against Purushotham, being insolvency petition No. The evidence of D. They will not fail in their words. The contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that the High Court has omitted to take into consideration various circumstances which had been taken into consideration by the trial court and as such the findings of the High Court on material issues are vitiated. It was further alleged that except the two mortgages mentioned in the sale deed the other debts shown as consideration for the sale were false and fictitious, that the said mortgages were paid by defendants 6 to 8 out of the standing crops, and that there was absolutely no necessity for borrowing the large sums considering the large income from the joint family properties. According to it every Hindu is bound to pay the debts notwithstanding that it was time-barred because he is under a religious and moral obligation to pay the same.

Next

antecedent debt

antecedent debt

His evidence also gives the impression that he has come to oblige D. Purushotham and the other to his brother, K. The mortgage deed is true and binding only so far as the shares of the Karta and his brother are concerned. A time barred debt is not Ayavaharika and therefore it has been held that when the father alienated joint family property in consideration of a debt that is barred by the law of limitation, the alienation is binding on the sons. There was pressure from the creditors for the discharge of the debts. See DCL § 272.

Next

Antecedent Debt

antecedent debt

B-5 dated 22nd August, 1955 and a mortgage deed Ext. Even the said mortgages were paid by defendants 6 to 8 out of the standing crops. Hindu law does not recognize a limitation period for the recovery of debts. Govindaswami Mudaliar and his two brothers arrayed as defendants I to 3. In substance their defence was that the alienation by Purushotham was for payment of antecedent debts which were untainted by illegality or immorality; that the father under the Hindu law possessed a special power to alienate joint family property including the shares of his sons for payment of his own debts not incurred for immoral or illegal purposes; that in exercise of that power he had sold all his interest and the interest of his minor sons, that d registered agreement of sale was entered into on 7th of July 1955 and the period of two months was provided for the performance of the contract and the vendees had investigated before entering into the transaction; that the transaction was normal, regular and bona fide one; that the vendees had in fact paid off the full consideration applying it for discharge of antecedent debts obtaining from several creditors vouchers for such due payment and cancellation. It has been found as a fact that lungi business was the individual or private business of Purushotham In view or the factual position it could not be said that Sriramulu had alienated the joint family property in the capacity as a father of his sons for discharging any antecedent debt incurred by him merely because he has also joined Purushotham in executing the impugned sale. The father, in the exercise of his power of alienation, may dispose only of the property which the sons would have exercised in the performance of their pious duty which they owed him.

Next