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

2009 Supreme(Mad) 2474

K.CHANDRU
Jaisankar & – Appellant
Versus
Ramadevi – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:P. Subramani, Advocate. For the Respondent: No Appearance.

Judgment :-

1. Heard the petitioner.

2. This Petition has been filed by the petitioning Creditor under Sections 9(1)(b), 9(1)(d) (ii), 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 (for short PTI Act), praying to adjudicate the Debtor as insolvent.

3. The Petitioning Creditor sold to the debtor one number of 6 colour Flexo Printing machine with cylinders, for which the debtor did not make payment. Hence the petitioning creditor issued notice to the debtor. The respondent sent a reply sating that she will pay the amount if the interest is waived. The petitioning creditor agreed for the same, but the debtor did not make payment.

4. Therefore, the petitioning Creditor has filed this Insolvency Petition under Sections 9 (1)(b) and 9 (1)(d)(ii) of the PTI Act alleging that the respondent/debtor did not make payment and hence she committed the act of insolvency. Sections 9(b) and 9(d)(ii) reads as follows:

“9. Acts of insolvency.- (1) A debtor commits an act of insolvency in each of the following cases, namely:-

(b) if, in the States or elsewhere, he makes a transfer of his property or of any part thereof with intent to defeat or delay his creditors;

(d)(ii) he departs

















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