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

1976 Supreme(Mad) 199

RAMAPRASADA RAO
Karnagam – Appellant
Versus
Jayaseelam Chettiar – Respondent


Advocates:
R. Harikesavan, for Petitioner; K. Sengottiar, for Respondents.

Judgement

ORDER :- The Court below ought not to have dismissed the petitioner's application for adjudication as an insolvent under S. 10 (1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920. The petitioner's case in his petition was that he has incurred loans in cultivation and agricultural operations and incurred debts to the tune of Rs. 7,200 which is inclusive of a decree debt admittedly obtained against him by one of his creditors who is the first respondent in the application filed in the lower Court. It is not in dispute that the first respondent obtained a decree in O. S. No. 418 of 1971 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Nagapattinam and that he has levied execution against him and obtained also an order of arrest in execution of the decree. Consequent upon such harassment by his creditors and his inability to pay the debts disclosed by him in the schedule to the petition, the petitioner came to Court with an application for voluntary adjudication, of himself as an insolvent. Excepting the first respondent, other creditors did not contest. The first respondent's case was that the debts disclosed by the petitioner other than the decree debt owing by him to the first respondent



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