SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1988 Supreme(Kar) 485

Karnataka High Court
R.Vaikuntu Buligu - Appellant
Versus
Pangal Nayak Bank Ltd. - Respondent
Decided On : 11-07-88
C.R.P. : 2833 of 1986

Advocates:
C.S.Ramdas, S.S.Ullal

The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a valid insolvency notice and compliance within the specified period as per the provisions of the Provincial Insolvency Act.

Headnote:

Insolvency - Notice - Provincial Insolvency Act - Section 6, Section 7, Section 9, Section 24(1)(c), Section 25(1), Section 6a, Rule 5 - The judgment discusses the provisions of the Provincial Insolvency Act, particularly focusing on the requirements for adjudicating a person as insolvent, the issuance and compliance of insolvency notices, and the grounds for setting aside such notices. The court emphasizes the importance of a valid notice and the necessity for compliance within the specified period, ultimately leading to the decision to set aside the order under revision.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent issued a notice under Section 6a of the Provincial Insolvency Act seeking payment of money within 30 days. Subsequently, a petition was filed for adjudication of the petitioners as insolvents. The main contention was the validity of the notice issued and the compliance period specified.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the notices issued were not in conformity with the provisions of the Act, as they did not provide a compliance period of 'not less than one month' as required. The court rejected the respondent's contentions regarding the validity of the notice, res judicata, waiver, acquiescence, and estoppel, ultimately allowing the revision petition and setting aside the order.

Issues: The main issue revolved around the validity of the insolvency notices issued under the Provincial Insolvency Act, particularly concerning the compliance period specified in the notices.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity for a valid notice and compliance within the specified period as per the provisions of the Act. It rejected the respondent's arguments and held that the inherent defect in the notice itself rendered it invalid, leading to the decision to set aside the order under revision.

Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed, and the order under revision was set aside based on the ground of the invalidity of the notice.

RAJENDRA BABU, J.

( 1 ) PURSUANT to a decree made in O. S. No. 74 of 1968 on the file of the Civil Judge, mangalore, at the instance of the respondent a notice was issued under Section 6a of the provincial Insolvency Act, as applicable to the Mysore State (hereinafter referred to as 'act') seeking payment of money within 30 days in I. C. 48/79. Petitioners filed an application to set aside the said notice but no order was made on that application and the proceedings stood closed. Thereafter a petition was filed under Sections 6, 7 and 9 of the Provincial Insolvency Act for adjudication of the petitioners as Insolvents before the Principal Civil Judge, Mangalore, in I. C. No. 17 of 1980 and the same was allowed. Against the said order miscellaneous Appeal No. 16 of 1984 was filed before the District Judge of Dakshina kannada at Mangalore and the same having been dismissed, this revision petition is filed. Though several contentions have been raised in this petition, it is sufficient to consider only one of them.

( 2 ) BEFORE I take up the consideration of the contentions it is necessary to briefly survey the provisions of the Act. If a debtor commits an act of insolvency a petition can be filed under Section 7 of the Act to adjudge him an insolvent. Under Section 24 (1) (c) of the Act one of the matters on which the court requires proof is that the debtor has committed an act of insolvency alleged against him. In the case of a petition presented by a creditor if the court is not satisfied with the proof of his alleged act of insolvency, it shall dismiss the petition as provided under Section 25 (1) of the Act. Thus the insolvency court has no power to adjudicate any person as insolvent unless he is a debtor and has committed an act of insolvency as defined in the Act. The foundation of jurisdiction for insolvency court to adjudge a person insolvent is act of insolvency. The acts of insolvency are enumerated in Section 6 of the Act. To the act Section 6 (1) was added by Mysore Act 7 of 1963. Section 6 in the Provincial insolvency Act was substantially amended by adding sub-sections (2) to (5) and renumbering the existing Section 6 of the Act as sub-section (1 ). The explanation thereto remains unaffected. After the act as was amended by Central as stated above, the mysore Insolvency Rules were amended which came into force in 1982.

( 3 ) OLD Section 6 (1) of the Act states that a debtor commits an act of insolvency if after a creditor has served a notice on him under the Act in respect of a decree or an order for the payment of any amount due to such creditor, the execution of which is not stayed he does not, within the period specified in the notice which shall not be less than one month, either comply with the requirements of the notice or satisfy the Court that he has a counter claim or set off which equals or exceeds the decretal amount he could not lawfully set up in the suit or proceeding in which the decree or order was made against him. Section 6a provides procedure regarding issue of notice and sub-section (2) of Section 6a states that such notice shall not be invalidated by reason only that the sum specified in the notice as the amount due exceeds the amount actually due unless the debtor within the time allowed for payment gives notice to the creditor that he disputes the validity of the notice on the ground of such mis- statement, but if the debtor does not give such notice, he shall be deemed to have complied with the insolvency notice, if within the time allowed he takes such steps as would have constituted a compliance with the notice had the actual amount due been correctly specified therein. Rule 5 of the rules framed under the Act provides for the form in which notice could be issued and also that any person served with such notice, may, within the time allowed for compliance apply to the Court for sufficient reasons see fit to allow, apply to the court to set aside the insolvency notice on the ground that he h









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top