Back
ABHAY AHUJA
Raj Kantilal Shah – Appellant
Versus
Sanskar Gem Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ABHAY AHUJA, J.
1. This petition seeks an order of adjudication of insolvency by this Court against the Debtor Raj Kantilal Shah of Mumbai.
2. It is not in dispute that the Judgment Debtor owes to the Petitioner Rs. 21,37,78,446.52. Earlier, on 31st March, 2016, the Petitioning Creditor sent demand notice to Judgment Debtor. On 3rd May, 2016 interim reply was sent by advocate for Judgment Debtor to the Petitioning Creditor. On 9th February, 2017, decree on admission was passed in terms of the consent terms dated 9th February, 2017 in Summary Suit No. 657 of 2016. As the Judgment Debtor failed to make payment in terms of the said decree, Insolvency notice dated 16th October, 2018 was issued which was sealed on 4th December, 2018. The Insolvency notice was served upon the Judgment Debtor on 8th December, 2018 and an affidavit of service was filed in this regard. In accordance with the said insolvency notice the Judgment Debtor had 35 days to make payment of the decretal amount. It is not in dispute that, on 13th January, 2019, an act of Insolvency was committed by the Judgment Debtor as he had failed to make payment within 35 days. On 14th January, 2019, Notice of Motion No.
The Judgment Debtor's failure to comply with the Insolvency Notice and subsequent Notice of Motion led to the adjudication of insolvency under Section 9(2) of the Insolvency Act.
The burden of proving the contrary in insolvency proceedings is on the debtor, and the legal provisions create a presumption that the debtor has committed an act of insolvency if he fails to comply w....
The Appellant's suppression of material facts and false statement on oath, the requirement to discharge the debts of all creditors including the Respondent Bank in order to seek an order of annulment....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a valid debtor-creditor relationship and the need to prove the act of insolvency before adjudication under the Provincial In....
The judgment established the distinction between a period of limitation and a condition precedent, and the legislative intent behind the provisions of the Mysore Insolvency Act and the Mysore General....
The main legal point established is that the surplus amount in the insolvent's estate account can be used to satisfy all claims and may be refunded to the insolvent, in accordance with Section 21(1) ....
A maintenance order from a Family Court does not constitute a 'debt' under insolvency law, and merely filing for insolvency does not compel the court to declare a debtor as insolvent.
The court upheld that a business is considered active until all debts are paid, establishing the court's jurisdiction based on the debtor's previous business activities despite claims of inactivity.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
