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

2022 Supreme(Mad) 1543

P. T. ASHA
T. Senthilvelan – Appellant
Versus
A. Senthil Kumar – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:J. Prithivi, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1 & R2, R. Nalliyappan, Advocate, R3, No Appearance.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is filed under Section 75 (2) of Provincial Insolvency Act, read with Section 100 of the CPC against the Judgment and Decree passed in C.M.A.No.26 of 2016 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Salem dated 31.08.2018 reversing the Fair and Final Order dated 11.11.2013 passed in I.P.No.37 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem.)

1. The point in issue in this Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is whether the creditor can directly approach the Insolvency Court to have the borrower adjudged an Insolvent without obtaining a decree. This issue has to be answered in order to consider the substantial question of law that has been framed in this Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal, namely,

When it is proved that the first respondent/debtor had admittedly borrowed money from the petitioner by executing a pronote as security for the borrowal and subsequently transferred his only property in favour of his wife without consideration and without making provision for his debts, is not the act of the respondent would amount to an act of insolvency?

2. The parties are referred to in the same ranking as before the Insol

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