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

2019 Supreme(Mad) 3204

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
R. SUBBIAH, T. KRISHNAVALLI, JJ.
S. Dayanidhi - Appellant
Versus
Visesh Cargo & Travels Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. - Respondents
O.S.A. No. 101 of 2019, C.M.P. Nos. 9569, 13806 and 13807 of 2019
Decided On : 28-11-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : K. Elango.
For the Respondents: R. Ramanlal and M. Vasantha Kumar, Deputy Official Assignee.

Headnote:

Presidency Towns Insolvency Act – Section 21 – Annulling the order of adjudication – Suddenly, due to recession in the trade, he could not collect money from various clients – Appellant was also doing the abovesaid business locally by having tie-ups with the local fishermen (vendors) –His customers at abroad also had purchased huge quantity of marine products from him on credit basis and most of them have not repaid the money for purchase of such marine products – Hence, he had to sustain severe loss which resulted in shortage of funds –Held, Fact, the learned counsel for the appellant himself during the course of his arguments, submitted that out 69 creditors mentioned in List-A of the Insolvency Petition, 51 creditors belong to his wife and only the remaining 18 creditors are his creditors – But is the contention of the appellant that those creditors were included by the appellants erstwhile counsel and hence, the appellant may not be blamed for it – Moreover, court find that the Advocate cannot implead the unsecured creditors of the appellants wife on his own accord, unless the particulars about the wifes unsecured creditors are given by the appellant – It is apparent from the records that, deliberately, the appellant has included the unsecured creditors of the appellants wife and obtained an order of adjudication by playing fraud upon the Court, by knowing fully well that he is doing so – With regard to question (iii), it is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the first respondent has no locus-standi to maintain the application filed by him – Which is accordingly dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

R. Subbiah, J.

1. This Original Side Appeal (OSA) is filed against the order dated 13.03.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in Appln. No. 182 of 2018 in I.P. No. 18 of 2017 on the file of this Court, annulling the order of adjudication dated 23.11.2017 passed in the abovesaid I.P.

2. The appellant was adjudged as an insolvent on his own petition, by order of the learned Master of this Court, dated 23.11.2017 passed in I.P. No. 18 of 2017. It is the case of the appellant in the said I.P. that his total liabilities are to the tune of Rs. 8,66,78,000/- and his assets are of the value of Rs. 3,27,53,664/-. He was dealing with marine products such as fish, crab, shell and prawn. He had started to work as working partner in the said business in the year 2001 in the name and style of M/s. HL Marine Foods. Thereafter, he started another trading company in the name and style of Almash Fish Trading LLC in the year 2014 at Dubai and was successfully running it till January 2017. Suddenly, due to recession in the trade, he could not collect money from various clients. The appellant was also doing the abovesaid business locally by having tie-ups with the local fishermen (vendors). His customers at abroad also had purchased huge quantity of marine products from him on credit basis and most of them have not repaid the money for purchase of such marine products. Hence, he had to sustain severe loss which resulted in shortage of funds.

3. It is the further case of the appellant (insolvent) that the business was running smoothly till January 2017. Since the customers have not repaid the dues, the troubles started. Thereafter, he could not run the business in a profitable manner and he had started borrowing loans from the private financiers and money lenders at a high rate of interest. The appellant could not repay the amount to the creditors, since he was not able to collect the amounts due from his customers. He has filed I.P. No. 18 of 2017 praying to adjudicate him as an insolvent and to direct the Official Assignee to take care of the assets for administration in a regular manner.

4. In the said I.P., the appellant had annexed List-A, containing 69 unsecured creditors/companies/parties and in List-D, he had given 3 names as his debtors. In the said List-A, the first respondent herein, namely Visesh Cargo and Travel Private Limited was shown as first unsecured creditor.

5. The learned Master, by order dated 23.11.2017 in I.P. No. 18 of 2017, passed an order of adjudication, adjudging the appellant as an insolvent. Thereafter, the first respondent-Company, namely Visesh Cargo and Travels Private Limited, which was shown as first unsecured creditor in I.P. No. 18 of 2017 filed by the appellant, has filed an application in A. No. 182 of 2018 in I.P. No. 18 of 2017 to annul the order of adjudication, dated 23.11.2017 passed in I.P. No. 18 of 2017. In the affidavit filed in A. No. 182 of 2018, the first respondent herein has stated that the appellant has filed the Insolvency Petition (IP) by playing fraud upon the Court. The proceedings under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act III of 1909 are proceedings-in-personam and hence, the personal debts due by the appellant/debtor can alone be adjudicated, but in the I.P., the appellant/debtor showed the debts incurred by his wife and got himself adjudicated as an insolvent. In this regard, it has been further stated in the said affidavit that the appellant/debtor's wife is running a business in the name of M/s. H.L. Marine Foods and she is the sole proprietrix of the said business. She had borrowed money from M/s. RBL Bank Limited. The wife of the appellant owes the first respondent-Company a sum of Rs. 3,09,02,496/- and hence, the first respondent-Visesh Cargo and Travels Private Limited has filed a suit in C.S. No. 585 of 2017 before this Court as against (i) appellant/insolvent, (ii) wife of the appellant and (iii) M/s. H.L. Marine Foods. In the said suit, the first respondent had filed O.

        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 Back to top