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

1981 Supreme(Mad) 216

BALASUBRAMANYAN
K. Maranaicken – Appellant
Versus
R. S. Saradhambal – Respondent


Advocates:
P. Sukumar and Mohana S. Nair, for Petitioner; S. Sitarama lyer, S. Rajarama lyer and S. Sitaraman, for Respondent.

Judgement Key Points

What is the effect of Tamil Nadu Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Act, 1975 on maintainability of an insolvency petition under the Provincial Insolvency Act? What is required to prove an act of insolvency under S.6(b) of the Provincial Insolvency Act in the context of debtor's sale of property? Under what circumstances should an insolvency petition be dismissed under S.25(1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act?

Key Points: - (!) - [21000237690002] - [21000237690005] - (!) - [21000237690004] - [21000237690006] - [21000237690007] - [21000237690008] - [21000237690009] - [21000237690010]

What is the effect of Tamil Nadu Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Act, 1975 on maintainability of an insolvency petition under the Provincial Insolvency Act?

What is required to prove an act of insolvency under S.6(b) of the Provincial Insolvency Act in the context of debtor's sale of property?

Under what circumstances should an insolvency petition be dismissed under S.25(1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act?


Judgement

ORDER :- In this revision under the Provincial Insolvency Act. 1920 from the appellate order of the District Court, the question is whether an order of adjudication passed against a debtor is valid ? The act of insolvency alleged by the petitioning creditor against the debtor was that within three months of the presentation of the insolvency petition, the debtor has alienated the most valuable property of his to a third party. The debt due to the petitioning creditor was under a promissory note. It was for Rs. 5350. The debtor has realised Rs. 33,000 from the sale of some of his properties and yet from out of the proceeds, he did not pay anything, towards the discharge of the debts. It was alleged by the petitioning creditor that the sale by the debtor of his properties was with intent to defeat and delay his creditors. The debtor denied this act of insolvency. He asserted that the sale effected by him was bona fide. He said that out of the proceeds of sale, he had discharged certain debts to an extent of Rs. 8000 and the balance was utilised for conducting the marriage of his two sons, for 'seers' or presents to his daughter and for digging a well. The debtor also submitt














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