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

1984 Supreme(Guj) 78

R.A.MEHTA
MOHANLAL PREMJIBHAI THAKKAR – Appellant
Versus
SHAH ATULKUMAR KANTILAL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: B.J.SHELAT, DEVANG T.SHAH

R. A. MEHTA, J.

( 1 ) A short question is whether the Insolvency Court has any discretion to issue a notice to the opponents-debtors after admitting the insolvency petition and before directing public notice to issue. One more significant fact is that the debtors had already filed a caveat and served copy thereof to one of the petitioning creditors prior to filing of the insolvency petition. Yet without hearing the opponents-debtors the trial Court had passed the following order: General and public notice and special notice to issue according to law. Public notice to issue In Gujarat Government Gazette also. Applicant to deposit Rs. 700/- for the expenses. Notice be issued in daily Jana Satta.

( 2 ) THE debtors filed an application ex. 26 praying that the order of public notice below ex. 1 be stayed and the other orders also be stayed since they were passed without any notice to them (the debtors) It was pointed out in the application that the Caveat Application No. 25 of 1982 was filed in the court on 22/03/1982 and the petitioner No. 1 had received the same on 30/03/1982 and yet the original applicants had obtained ex-parte order of public notice on 7/04/1982. It was pointed out t










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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top